Concave Earth Theory

There are four pieces of evidence, that I know of, which purport to show that we live inside a concave Earth. None of the evidence below is 100% conclusive, but two items are very close.

Tamarack mines
Lenses and the horizon
Altitude and the horizon
Overall conclusion


Tamarack mines

Anybody who has ever looked into concave Earth theory (CET), will know about this experiment thanks to Donald E. Simanek’s article which appeared in the early days of the world wide web. In a nutshell, the experiments were these:

In the fall of 1901 J.B. Watson, Chief Engineer at the Tamarack copper mine (S. of Calumet, Mich.) suspended 4250 foot long plumb lines down mine shafts. Measurements showed that the plumb lines were farther apart at the bottom than at the top, contrary to expectations.


“Contrary to expectations” is the understatement of our age. A hanging plumb line is at a precise right angle from the horizontal and shows a builder the true vertical for the place where he wants to build a wall. The true vertical always points to the center of gravity which means a plumb line also does the same. We are supposed to live on the convex surface of a solid sphere so that plumb lines, in theory, should always point to the center of the Earth globe, which is supposed to be below our feet… except they didn’t… at least the first experiments in 1901 did not. The lines hung in the Tamarack mines converged in space instead.

plumb lines convex
The balls were expected to move closer together towards the center of the Earth where the center of gravity should reside if it were a pull dependent on mass as Newton said it was.
plumb lines Tamarack mines
Instead, in 1901, the balls moved further apart, apparently putting the center of gravity in space making it a push from outside, rather than a pull from within.

This result would make a complete mockery of the Newtonian theory of mass and gravity. According to Newton, the larger the mass, the more attractive pull it possesses with its center of gravity being at the center of the mass. This, by the way, has nothing to do with free-falling objects which fall in accordance with the inverse square laws only; whether it is a piano or tennis ball falling, both fall at the same speed. Mass and gravity are only supposed to apply to “outer space” bodies. As written about in previous articles, heliocentricity and Copernicism has now been proven blatantly false and so it stands to reason that this part of Newtonian gravitational theory is also very likely a pack of lies. The 1901 Tamarack plumb lines diverging indicated that gravity might emanate from above not below. So instead of gravity being a property of matter, it would be in actual fact a property of space or the ether.

The experiments were reported in the newspapers at the time and also appearing in Professor Mc. Nair’s paper, Divergence of Long Plumb-Lines at the Tamarack Mine (Science, XV, 390 June 20, 1902) and the book Cellular Cosmonogy by Cyrus Teed and Ulysses Grant Morrow (a copy of this PDF can also be downloaded from this blog’s server).

Dr. McNair

The first test in September 1901 used two no. 24 steel piano wires with 50 pound cast iron bobs hanging 4250 feet down shaft 5. Both bobs were also immersed in pails of engine oil to hinder undue vibrations. They were roughly 15 feet apart and created a divergence of 0.11 feet at the bottom, but were then moved slightly further apart to avoid obstacles and gave a divergence of 0.07 feet. To rule out magnetism between the iron ventilation pipe running down the western side of the shaft and the plumb bobs, 50 pound lead balls were used and the test repeated, but this time the length of the wires was 120 feet shorter and situated in shaft 2. Again, a divergence of 0.10 feet was found. So far so good.

Just to be absolutely sure no magnetism was involved, the same experiments were repeated in January 1902 in shaft 4, but this time with bronze No. 20 piano wires which carried 60-pound lead bobs approximately 15 feet apart and 4,440 feet in length. They found a very slight convergence of 0.028 feet. Steel wires were used again alternating between the iron and lead bobs also giving similar converging results in shaft 4. Lastly, the test was repeated in shaft 5 with the bronze wire and lead bobs to give a bigger diverging reading than the 1901 test of 0.141.

                             Distances in feet. 
                                                Convergence -,
Date,   Shaft   Wires   Bobs  Surface  Lower    Divergence +.
1902                                   Extrem-

Jan. 3  No. 4   Bronze. Lead. 15.089   15.061   - 0.028
 ``  6   `` 4   Steel.  Lead  15.089   15.074   - 0.015
 ``  6   `` 4   Steel.  Iron. 15.089   15.062   - 0.027
 ``  9   `` 4   Bronze. Lead. 14.607   14.611   + 0.004
 `` 16   `` 5   Bronze. Lead. 16.709   16.850   + 0.141

The consistent results within each of the different shafts led McNair to theorize that circulating air was the culprit with shaft 5’s updraft along the western line causing the divergence. They managed to block off most of the updraft by moving the wire and sealing the top leaving only a very small circulating air current due to the hot air at the bottom of the shaft naturally moving up to the colder air at the top. This gave a very small divergence of 0.018 feet. Shaft 2 had the same construction as shaft 5 and so was expected to have the same air current direction; and the western line in shaft 4 was too close to the wall allowing for the circulating currents to push against it making them converge slightly. When this was rectified, the lines were nearly parallel, diverging 0.04 feet.

Interestingly, Morrow states that the 0.018 divergence in shaft 5, after the air current had been cut off, was nearer to the necessary divergence of a concave Earth.

…and this divergence was considerably less and nearer the calculated divergence of gravic rays in the hollow globe, than that obtained when the air in the shaft was in circulation.


The “air current” theory sounds a reasonable conclusion, unlike Simanek‘s added opinion that the divergence was caused by a rotating Earth. As we know it is the heavens which rotate and not the Earth thanks to a multitude of experiments in the late 19th and early 20th century. Lastly, both Simanek and Mcnair agree that the gravity of the surrounding rock would be too negligible to affect the results.
Another Experiment
However, neither the newspapers, nor Mcnair’s paper mention a crucial additional experiment which would unequivocally prove a concave Earth. This was only fully reported in the November 1960 edition of Flying Saucers, The Magazine of Space Conquest written by Ray Palmer, and partly in the book Cellular Cosmonogy.

Palmer claimed that there was a 8.22 inches divergence (0.685 feet) between one plumb line which was hung in shaft 2 and another in shaft 5, both 4250 feet apart and deep, and with a 4250 long transverse tunnel connecting the two at the bottom. The engineers used this figure to calculate the distance of the center of gravity by following this angle of divergence further upwards, which was apparently found to be around 4000 miles up in space (not in the ground).

Ray Palmer, editor of Flying Saucers magazine.

It did not take the Tamarack engineer long to discover the divergence that would be necessary to complete a 360 spherical circumference. There was only one difficulty as expressed be the plumb lines, it would be the circumference of the inside of a sphere, and not the outside; Further, the center of gravity, as expressed by the angles formed by the plumb lines, would be approximately 4,000 miles out in space!

Obviously this could not be true, because if the Chinese were to make calculations based on a similar pair of mine shafts in their country, on the opposite side of the globe, the center of gravity would be found to be 4,000 miles in the other direction. The center of gravity, according to the plumb lines, was a sphere’s surface, some 16,000 miles in diameter. Any place, 4,000 miles up, was the center of gravity.

If this were true, you may think well, maybe the Earth is convex but the entire circumference 4000 miles up is the center of gravity, as if the Earth is encased in a ball putting increasing pressure down on it? Except the center of gravity is just that… the center. All lines on any place converge on ONE POINT, not a continuous plate. There is only one conclusion from Palmer’s citation, which is the Earth is concave and we live on the inside.

Ray Palmer wasn’t the only one. A more contemporary source at the time was Ulysses Grant Morrow, a geodetist (Earth surveyor) and member of the Koreshan Unity whose members believed the Earth to be concave.

The Geodesist (Earth surveyor) Ulysses Grant Morrow.

In the book Cellular Cosmogony, written by both Ulysses Morrow and Cyrus Teed, the results of this experiment were unknown to Morrow because it seems they were being carried out at the time of writing. Morrow also states that the two shafts were 3,200 feet apart instead of Palmer’s 4,200 feet. Nevertheless, he claimed to confidently predict the divergence would be 8.22 inches. On page 201:

The distance between shafts no.2 and no.5 is 3,200 feet. It was the intention of the mining engineer to have the twenty-ninth level opened between the two shafts, a line suspended in each shaft, and measurements taken at the top and bottom. The calculated downward divergence of two perpendiculars 3,200 apart is 8.22 inches for the length of 4,250 feet; and we declare with confidence and certainty, that the two plumb-lines in the proposed experiment just outlined, will approximate this divergence.


Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead. They were also unlikely to be mistaken as their geodetic experiment (described further down in this article) was nothing but pedantic in its precision. It could be that they themselves had been misinformed of such an experiment, or perhaps the test had been scheduled to take place but was abandoned. Another possibility is that this experiment did indeed occur, but the results were too controversial to be published – a mini-conspiracy of sorts. Whatever the truth, we will probably never know.

Despite the overall results, especially in shaft 2 and 5 being one of divergence, the theory of circulating air as the cause is perfectly acceptable. For Tamarack mines to conclusively show that the Earth is concave, Morrow/Palmer’s report of the other experiment between the connecting shafts of 2 and 5 showing a divergence of 8.22 inches would have to be correct. Is their testament accurate? A similar test would have to be repeated in several adjacent shafts in different active mines throughout the world to be absolutely sure. Abandoned mines, such as Tamarack, would be very dangerous to enter due to flooding, mold, gas, potential cave-ins, rotten wood etc. I can’t see the head engineers of today’s mines bothering to test Palmer’s claim, but this is what is needed.

So, with the available information on the internet, do the old Tamarack mine’s experiments show a concave Earth? Maybe (50%).



Invented by the geodesist (Earth surveyor) Ulysses Grant Morrow who was a member of the Koreshan Unity headed by Cyrus Teed. As already stated, both Teed and Morrow wrote the book Cellular Cosmogony, claiming that we live inside a concave Earth. To verify these claims Morrow made a simple invention called the rectilineator.

The Koreshans around their geodetic device – the rectilineator.

This was a series of 12-foot long, 8-inch wide, 12-year seasoned mahogany supports held up by two vertical posts (which Teed calls “standards”) with brass castings attached which could be adjusted for height by turning set screws on the front sides of each.

Through flanges on the facings, ingenious screws were placed for securing the adjustments when made… each section was supported by two strongly built platformed standards, with adjustable castings to receive the horizontal sections between the body of the castings and adjustable cleats with clamps and screws. The sections rest in the castings edgewise…


At either end of the support were 4-foot long, 5-inch wide vertical cross-arms with a different set of brass fittings fitted to both the top and bottom of each cross-arm. Steel tension bars were attached to these fittings, making the whole apparatus look a little bit like rugby posts.

A diagram of the rectilineator.
The last surviving piece of the rectilineator.
The supports along the beach during measurement.
Looking down the supports as they enter the water.

The 12-foot supports were erected on the four-mile long nearly flat sandy beach of the Bay of Naples, Florida looking South, initially parallel to the shoreline. The first few supports started before the water line and so this dry part of the beach had to be excavated to make a continuous level path with the rest of the beach which was under water.

As the air line was to be straight, and as the shore line was a little irregular, the land elevation above the water level varied from 3 to 5 feet. Excavations were necessary, and much other work of similar character, to remove all obstructions and clear the way for convenient and uninterrupted operations when the adjustments began.


The first few supports started before the waterline to the left of Naples Dock.

They used three leveling devices to make sure the first support was absolutely flat: a plumb line (hung on both vertical cross-arms), a standard spirit level, and a geodetic level which was a 12 foot long vial with mercury in two mid-sections. They also looked down the horizontal of the support to make sure it also was level with the horizon. This was done with the utmost care and precision.

The leveling was a careful, painstaking, and successful work, witnessed by every member of the Staff, and finally pronounced perfect at 8:50 on the morning of March 18, 1897.


Once leveled, another two posts were placed in line, with their brass support castings placed at the approximate height of those holding up the first support. The second support beam was placed in these castings and set screws were turned in the castings to move the support beam up or down horizontally to approximately match the middle line of the first support beam.

The supports were then moved to within a quarter of an inch of the brass facings which had been fitted at either end of the cross-arms of both supports. The set screws were turned further to raise or lower the horizontal beam so that the hairlines of both supports were exactly in line with each other, the fine lines of which were measured with a microscope. It was the hair-line of the top of the opposing brass facings that seem to have been measured; although I’m not 100% sure. The second horizontal beam was then carefully moved to within one fiftieth of an inch of the brass facings of the first support as this more intricate measuring procedure was taking place.

This distance was determined by testing the friction of a bristol card when it was passed between the brass facings. Apparently bristol cards were always the same width as these had already been measured by micrometers. With the same friction of the bristol card between the opposing upper and lower brass facings on the cross-arms meant with 100% certainty that both horizontal beams were level with each other to one fiftieth of an inch.

And on page 102 the authors show how their engineers made sure that the cross-arms where 100% at right-angles to the support on manufacture:

The cross-arms on several sections must be proven to be at right-angles with the longitudinal hairline or axis of the sections of the apparatus. The inventor and mechanical experts devoted four weeks to test and the adjustment of the right angles; six series of tests were applied, and each section was reversed, end for end, and reversed, and turned over fifty times on the special platform with mechanical devices for measurement and reference. Points and the finest possible lines engraved on steel and brass plates, to which adjustments were referred, were read by means of the microscope; in this way, the very slightest variation of angles could be detected.


The steel tension bars were used to make sure the cross-arms remained at right angles which was determined by the friction of the bristol cards. Once the second support had been moved to one fiftieth of an inch close to the first, the two sections were bolted together to make sure no further movement was possible. These bolts were very solid in their position as the authors say:

…the direction of our line was fixed, from which it was not possible to depart; the bolts which held together the brass facings on the adjusted right-angled cross-arms would admit of no change.


This procedure was repeated a few times until there were no more 12-foot sections to add. They then took the first 12-foot section and added it to the end of the last one, flipping the horizontal support over with every alternate addition to ensure that there could be no errors in a slightly “sagging” beam.

The method employed to insure further accuracy was by making the apparatus neutralize its own inaccuracies by reversal or turning-over of each section at every alternate adjustment. This process would correct any error arising from any inaccuracy of the brass-facings–for whatever error in the line would result from a single cross-arm being more or less than .005 of an inch out of right angle, would be corrected when that section should be reversed, as every mechanic well knows.


They kept repeating this process down the four and one eighth mile stretch, adjusting the horizontal beam up or down to keep it level with the last. At every eighth of a mile, the height of the horizontal support was measured against the water level beneath, as the water plane is always level to the Earth. However, the water was of course tidal, the level of which had to be measured. This was done by an apparatus called a caisson which is just an artificially created perforated basin allowing the water to be still so it can be easily measured. This possibly could be a weaker point in the experiment as the height of the tide stick (128 inches) in the caisson had to be level with the height of the tide stick on the shore where the original supports had begun very close by. This was done by line of sight with a telescope. Once the tide stick on the shore was marked with the same level of the tide in the caisson, the shore tide stick was brought to one of the 25 tide stick stations along the line (eighth of a mile) where the waterline was currently being measured.

If the distance between the waterline and the horizontal support was the same at each eighth of a mile, then this would prove that the Earth was flat. If the distance continually grew, it was convex (the earth dipping down); and if the distance decreased, it was concave (the Earth curving upwards). Simanek has even added his own calculations at the end.

Date   Dist.   Height    Height    ratio of   Radius   Dev.
1897   (miles) above     below     curvature  (miles)   %  
               datum     2nd       (inches)
               (inches)  datum (in)
Mar 18   0.000   128.000     0.000 
    19   0.125   127.850     0.150     0.020  3300.0  -18.5 
    23   0.250   127.740     0.260    -0.352  7615.4   88.0 
    24   0.375   126.625     1.375     0.568  3240.0  -20.0 
    25   0.500   126.125     1.875     0.625  4224.0    4.3 
    27   0.625   124.125     3.875     2.650  3193.5  -21.2 
    30   0.750   123.675     4.325     3.048  4120.2    1.7 
    31   0.875   121.570     6.430     4.583  3772.2   -6.9 
Apr  1   1.000   119.980     8.020     6.172  3950.1   -2.5 
     2   1.125   117.875    10.125     8.355  3960.0   -2.2 
     8   1.250   116.440    11.560     9.468  4282.0    5.7 
     9   1.375   113.690    14.310    11.625  4185.5    3.3 
    13   1.500   111.070    16.930    13.680  4210.3    3.9 
    14   1.625   107.190    20.810    17.620  4019.9   -0.8 
    14   1.750   104.690    23.310    20.560  4162.2    2.8 
    15   1.875   101.690    26.310    22.655  4233.2    4.5 
    16   2.000    97.380    30.620    26.495  4138.5    2.2 
    24   2.125    93.440    34.560    28.530  4139.3    2.2 
    26   2.250    85.320    42.680    35.835  3757.7   -7.2 
    27   2.375    79.750    48.250    42.590  3703.5   -8.6 
May  8   2.500    74.000    54.000    48.125  3666.7   -9.5 
     8   2.625    68.000    60.000    54.500  3638.3  -10.2 
     8   2.750    63.000    65.000    95.000  3685.8   -9.0 
     8   3.000    53.000    75.000            3801.6   -6.1 
     8   4.125         0   128.000            4211.4    4.0

Average of the signed deviations: -3x10-14 %
Earth's radius, averaged from 1/8 mile curvatures: 4050.5 mile 
Average deviation of data values from the mean:    10.2 %
Average deviation of the mean:                      2.1 %
Modern value of Earth's radius:                    3963.5
Discrepancy:                                        2.2 % 
Ulysses G. Morrow’s Naples Survey Data. (The first four columns are from The Cellular Cosmogony (1898). The last three columns, and the summary results below, have been added, newly computed from the Morrow data.)

These decreasing distances conclusively show the Earth to be concave. Even Donald Simanek concurs that the results look genuine:

Even more remarkable is the fact that the results were consistent with an Earth circumference of 25,000 miles. Looking at the data with more modern techniques of data analysis than the Morrow team used, the data show that value to have an experimental uncertainty of a bit over 2%. It differs from the modern value by only about 2% also.

The fact that the average of the signed deviations is so small indicates that the individual values fluctuate about equally above and below the mean. This is an indication that the data is reasonably normal, and the distribution of random errors isn’t skewed. While the individual values fluctuate about 10% from the mean, the average deviation of the mean is only about 2%, benefiting from the process of averaging 24 values. This “average deviation” measure is comparable, as a measure of “goodness of the result, to the standard deviation of the mean, a measure more commonly seen in research papers today.

So far, looking only at the data, this would seem to be a good experiment, with measurement uncertainties consistent with the instruments and methods used.


However, it wasn’t just the distance to the waterline that was being measured, but also the angle of two plumb lines on each of the cross-arms, the location of the bubble in a spirit level, the divergence of the air line and horizontal on the mercurial geodetic level, and the space between the front straight edge and the horizon. Basically, the same apparatus were used which made sure the first support was level at the beginning of the experiment.

If the earth were convex, the line would extend into space, as before explained; as the line would proceed, the bubble in the spirit level would shift at each successive application, more and more toward the south from the central division of the scale, while the plumbline hanging in the direction of the perpendicular, or the earth’s radii at the various stations, would hang toward the initial station. If concave, the conditions and positions of the levels and plumb would be the reverse of those on a convex surface; if flat, they would be the same continually, as at the beginning of the line…

(and looking down the horizon)
…On a convex arc, the straight-edges and the horizon line would appear to converge toward the north with increasing angle, as the line proceeded; if flat, their original parallel relations would be apparent throughout the line; and if concave, the apparent convergence would be toward the south, or in the direction of the movement of the apparatus.


Although the level of the supports was tested every eighth of a mile, the equipment wasn’t sensitive enough to give accurate readings for the first few tests and so the readings given were at 1 mile, 2 miles, and 2 and three eighth miles. Here all the results were also agreeing with a concave Earth very nearly 25,000 miles in circumference.

The bubble had shifted a little – toward the north, or rear section of the apparatus. From the first point of the manifest deviation until the end of the line, the angle increased proportionately to the distance traversed. This was corroborated also by the position of the plumb line, and the observed increase of angle between the straight-edges and horizon, always converging toward the south.
Spirit Level, shift of bubble toward north end of the vial, as measured on the graduated scale:
1 mi., .0375 in.; 2 miles, .077 in.; 2⅜ mi., .089 in.

Plumbline, measurement on arc of 4 feet radius, as related to right-angled cross-arms: .
1 mi., .015 in.; 2 mi., .037 in.; 2⅜ mi., .044 in.

Mercurial geodetic level, indicating angle of divergence of air line and horizontal at points of test, for the space of 12 feet:
1 mi., .042 in.; 2 mi., .094 in.; 2⅜ mi., .115 in.

The Horizon, indicating angle for space of 36 feet, as accurately as could be measured with the eye at a distance of 15 feet from the apparatus:
1 mi., .15 in.; 2 mi., .34 in.; 2⅜ mi., .51 in.


You may think, well, the supports were on sand under water; could they subside and give skewered results? The results were very consistent however, not showing any irregularities such as one moment showing a convex earth and the next a concave one. They even addressed this possible issue by meticulously retracing the same line backwards three eighths of a mile one time and got the same results. Another retraction of 228 feet is also described in more detail on page 103/4 which gave exactly the same result as the original line to within 0.0001 inch!

It is supposed that settling played an important part in the descent of the line surveyed; if so, why should the line descend .15 of an inch for the first eighth of a mile, and 6 inches for the eighth between the 19th and 20th tide stakes? If settling produced the descent, this would be manifest by returning over the same line. We returned over the same line for a distance of ⅜ of a mile, to ascertain if there would be any deviation. The fact that the horizontal axis of the apparatus projected the line on the return survey to the same points on the record stakes indicating the air line in the forward survey, is proof of the fact that the factors of settling, if any existed, were absolutely neutralized, for they did not swerve the apparatus from a true and directed rectiline course. Let those who make such objections explain how the exact and definite ratio was obtained, if we did not extend a rectiline from the beginning of the survey.

(page 103/4) …228 feet were measured; a stake was fixed at the beginning, with brass plate bearing fine line coincidental with the horizontal hair-line of the apparatus. 19 forward adjustments were made, and the direction retraced; at the last return adjustment, the section was found to be in the exact same place as originally, with the hair-line precisely over the fine line on the brass plate. The results were obtained by observations with the microscope; the apparatus returned to the same point, after traversing the space of 456 feet, without deviation of 0.0001 of an inch.


One other possible problem may be the material. Despite the supports being 12-year seasoned mahogany, did the wood or brass expand or contract with the slight changes of temperature from one day to the next or through the possible absorption of seawater? The supports were however manufactured meticulously, as we have already seen, so this is highly doubtful. Also, the results would again not be so consistent as they were. The authors reply to this potential issue with:

A source of inaccuracy is also attributed to the contraction and expansion of the material of which the apparatus is constructed. Those who make this objection have never seen the apparatus, and consequently cannot appreciate the fact that the plan of its construction obviates the effect of whatever contraction or expansion occurred.

In fact, this experiment was not only precisely planned and implemented with each action repeatedly and independently checked, logged and signed off by everyone involved, but these independent external observers were adherers to the Copernican system!

Every item of adjustment, test, observation, and measurement was checked in the check record book, and described in detail in the daily record book, to which are appended the signatures of all operators and witnesses. The facts of preparation, measurements, and survey contained in this work are taken from the records, attested and sworn to by the entire Geodetic Staff and the investigating committee.

(page 104)… This test (the retracing of the three eighths of a mile) was in accordance with the plans of the critics on the field of observations, representing the Copernican system, who were doing all in their power to prove the instrument inaccurate.


It was also very thorough and painstaking work.

(Page 101) – The Geodetic staff of the Koreshan Unity reached the Operating Station January 2, 1897, with apparatus and all appurtenances and instruments, and plans of operations, which required five months’ careful observations and accurate work to execute.


Because this experiment was so iron-clad, the skeptic Simanek’s only retort is that somehow the supports must have all curved downwards due to experimental error or poor construction, despite all the evidence already mentioned proving otherwise and despite the fact that they inverted the horizontal supports with every addition!

If you think that is desperate, Skeptoid magazine claim the beams must have sagged continually downwards due to them being only supported at one end, with the results coincidentally exactly coinciding with a concave Earth! As the reader now knows, the supports weren’t supported at any end of course, but underneath on each post (standard) by brass castings. The ends were bolted to prevent any possible further movement from occurring and did not carry any weight of either support.

The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated since (for obvious reasons), which doesn’t make it 100% conclusive, but very close. Does the Rectilineator show a concave Earth? Extremely likely (99%).


Lenses and the horizon

The main evidence for the convexity of the Earth is the horizon and the fact that a person’s legs disappear from view before their torso and a ship’s hull vanishes from sight before its sail etc. It’s fairly easy to work out at what distance a person should fully disappear from view if the Earth were convex. At sea level, a six foot person is supposed to be only able to see the horizon at no more than 3 miles away; and a boat of 20 feet high at no more than 8.5 miles distance. However, both late 19th century books Celluar Cosmogony (CC) and Samuel Birley Rowbotham’s Zetetic Astronomy (ZA) cite plenty of examples where this distance has been far exceeded. Below are a few of them:

1. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a bright summer’s day, a boat carrying a flag on a pole 5 feet above the water was rowed from “Welche’s Dam” (a ferry crossing in England) to “Welney Bridge” 6 miles away. Rowbotham went into the water at Welche’s Dam and looked at the boat with a good telescope, his eye 8 inches above the water. He could see both the boat, its flag and the receding water during the entire journey. The man on the boat was even seen to lift up his oar to the top of the arch of the bridge when he reached it, as instructed. If the earth were convex, then the bottom of the flag should have been 16 feet and 8 inches below the horizon. As has already been stated, a six foot man is only supposed to see a distance of 3 miles due to the curvature of the Earth. The top of his flag should have been 11 feet 8 inches under the horizon… and yet it, the boat, man, and water were clearly and fully visible.

Welney Bridge
The flag, boat, and water were all clearly visible at 6 miles distance.
Welney Bridge2
Neither the boat, nor the flag should be visible 6 miles away.

2. From pages 68 to 72 of CC – On the Old Illinois Drainage Canal on July 25 1896, the distance between a bend in the canal to the first bridge is 5 miles. A 22-inch diameter target was placed 7 inches above the waterline at this bend. Three observers remained at the first bridge in a boat. Looking through the telescope at only 6 inches above the water, not only was the entire target seen but also the canal bank, the entire water surface up to and below the target, the hull of a barge with the men working nearby located by the side of the target, and the surface of the water up to the second bridge which was one and a half miles further up the canal! At 5 miles, the top of the target should have been 9 feet 7 inches below the line of vision if the Earth were convex.

The whole of two further targets of dimensions 21×27 and 26×38 inches 7 inches above the water were even seen 5 miles away with the naked eye (the eye was about 30 inches above the water). When the observer lowered their head to 15 inches above the water, the targets became invisible. However, when a telescope was placed even lower, at 6 inches above the water, the targets were plainly visible.

Old Illinois Drainage Canal
The old Illinois Drainage Canal.

At the time, the counter-argument for these obvious contradictions was that of atmospheric refraction. When light travels into a another medium of less or more density, its direction will change. You’ll remember this in physics class at school when you shone a beam of light into glass.

In this example, when light is shone from air through glass, the angle change is about 34.5°.

However, in the “line-of-sight” examples above, the medium through which light travels is the same (air). The only way for light to refract is if it is traveling from an area of less dense air to a heavier one, or vice-verse. Generally speaking, the bigger the differential, the more the refraction, but not always.

The angle and wavelength at which the light enters a substance and the density of that substance determine how much the light is refracted.


But the refractive index of (0 °C and 1 atm) air is 1.000293, compared to glass which is about 1.5 and a vacuum which is 1.0. So, the difference between the refraction of light in air at ground level and when traveling in a vacuum is 0.000293. In other words, virtually nothing; let alone the difference in air density say between an altitude of 0 feet and 16 feet, which the observed object was said to be at below the horizon in the first example.

In fact, the difference in air density between those small heights could change by the day, and even reverse themselves for a few moments or stay the same. There would be no consistency of observation at these altitudes if refraction of light through different air densities were involved.

However, this phenomena was always seen over water. Water has a high refractive index; although the air isn’t saturated with water as there were no clouds or fog at 0 to 16 feet so perhaps the light refracted through water vapour? Water Vapour has a refractive index of 1.000261 which is even less than air (0 °C and 1 atm). Water vapour is less dense than air. Not only is this a super piddly amount of refraction, but light travelling into a denser medium (water vapour to air) would refract away from the observer, not even towards them!

Light travelling from water vapour(less dense) into air (more dense) would refract away from the observer.

So much for refraction. The next two examples show the absurdity of the suggestion.

3. From pages 73 to 76 of CC – On August 16 1896 from the Shore of lake Michigan, a very small portion of the top of the masts of a 40-feet high schooner were seen 12 miles away at 30 inches above the water with the naked eye. Opera glasses allowed half the height of the sails to be visible, whereas a 40x telescope enabled the vessel to be seen, including the hull. At 12 miles distant, the bottom of the hull would be 60 feet below the horizon of a convex surface; a clear 20 feet below the top of the mast.

These kinds of observations, where only the naked eye could see the top of the vessel and the telescope the vessel’s entirety is repeated with observations of steamers on Lake Michigan. One steamer disappeared from view at 15 miles away with the naked eye, only to be completely seen with the telescope which was resting on a tripod at the same height. At this distance, the hull of the steamer should have been 150 feet below the horizon. Even accounting for the excuse of the supposed extreme refraction of one third (normally never more than one fifth), the vessel should be 100 feet below the horizon.

4. The distance across the Irish Sea from Holyhead, England to Dún Laoghaire harbour, Dublin, Ireland is at least 60 miles (actually 109.5km, or 68 miles). In and beyond the halfway point, it wasn’t uncommon for passengers to notice each of the bright lights of the lighthouses at either harbour – red light for the one at Holyhead and two bright ones for that of Dún Laoghaire. The red light was 44 feet above the water and the other side’s light was 68 feet above. The observers on deck were 24 feet above the water. If the Earth were a globe, the Dún Laoghaire lights would be 316 feet below the horizon and the other side, 340 feet below. That is some refraction!

The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same.


Dún Laoghaire experiment2
The people on the boats between Ireland and England could see the lights from both lighthouses.
Dún Laoghaire experiment
Three hundred and sixteen and 340 feet below the horizon is far too much for the alleged possibility of refraction to take into account.

Clearly the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect is not evidence that the Earth is turning downwards in a convex direction, nor an upwards one either for that matter. It may be the human eye that is at fault, or maybe not. Whatever the truth, it seems that the entire horizon is a result of the nature of optics.

5. From an article published in both Fortschritt für alle (Progress for everyone) ; Schlossweg 2 D-90537 Feucht Germany and the magazine Geokosmos, issue 11/12, December 1963. (Source Rolf Keppler’s website). The optical research division of the US Army Signal Corps developed a camera which was made to see objects 30 miles away. The Empire State Building and the outlines of Manhattan were photographed at 26 miles distance, including all the preceding ground and other objects, all from the Atlantic Highlands about 3 feet 3 inches above the ground! At this height the horizon for a convex Earth is calculated as 1.22 multiplied by the square root of 3.25 feet (height) which is 2.2 miles. This is what the limit of the US military camera should be for a convex Earth… but wasn’t. Instead it saw nearly 12 times further than that. Twelve times! And that’s not including the 30-mile horizon it was designed for, which would make it see 14 times more than it should.

Houston, we have a problem.

long distance photo
The reason this camera saw the horizon at 26 miles distance at a ground height of 39 inches is because of refraction… obviously.

Taking 2.2 away from the 26 miles seen by the military camera gives 23.8 miles. To calculate how far the object should be below the ground for a convex Earth take the square of 23.8 (distance) multiplied by 8 inches (difference in ground altitude of the first mile) which is 377 feet. In a convex Earth, Manhattan should have been invisible with only the top two thirds of the Empire State building above the horizon (1,250 ft height)… but not only were they fully photographed, so was everything else up in front of them… and how. The photograph shows 3 horizons; the first being the lighthouse at Sandy Hook at 4 miles distance, the second was Coney Island at 13 miles away, with the last being Manhattan at 26 miles. The furthest horizon was at the top of the photo, not the bottom; and to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the camera was pointing up. Pointing up! How else can this be explained unless the Earth is concave?

manhattan at 26 miles
Sandy Hook, followed by a 9-mile wide bay, then Coney Island, followed by another bay, then finally Manhattan at the top of the photograph are all shown in series.
concave camera
The camera was pointing upwards showing it was not at an elevated position and that all objects photographed must have been situated higher than the camera.

Below are the full details of the article:

The optical research division of the US-Army Signal Corps has just issued a new camera, which is specially suited to take photos at a distance of 50 km (30 mi.). The objective has a focal length of 254 cm (100 in.), it is 1 m long and has a diameter of 24.13 cm (9.5 in.), it has been corrected for using infra-red film.

Using this objective it is quite easy to analyze the terrain up to a distance of 10 to 20 km (6-12 mi.) and distinguish weapons, fortifications and transports. The disadvantage of such a teleobjective is the complete elimination of perspective.

The photo reproduced, shows the Empire State Building and the outlines of Manhattan at a distance of 41.8 km (26 mi.) At the bottom of the Empire State Building a large hotel is visible on Coney Island, however, it is only 20.9 km (13 mi.) distant from the camera. One could never tell from this photo that between these two buildings there is a distance of 21 km. The lighthouse of Sandy Hook, in the foreground of the photo is only 6.4 km (4 mi.) distant from the camera.

The new teleobjective is coupled to a 13 x 18 cm camera which can either use film cassettes or rolls of film. Each roll of film contains 30 exposures, however, a built-in cutter can be used to cut off exposed parts of the film.
They can be lifted out with the take-up spool. The shortest distance to still produce a sharp photo with this teleobjective is 500 m (1 600 ft.) In this case the width of the photo covers 31 m (100 ft.) At a distance of 20 km (12 mi.), which is the last point before infinity, the section of the photo covers about 1 000 m (3300 ft.)

The telescope, which is used to focus the camera has a magnification of 10 and shows the exact frame of the photo to be taken. When adjusting for the proper distance, the heavy objective, which is firmly mounted on the tripod, is not moved, but instead one only moves the camera.

The device weighs about 64 kg (140 lb.) and must be operated by two men. The whole camera is carried, with two handles each on front and back, like a stretcher. The device can be set up, aimed and adjusted, all within 5 minutes.

Interesting that yet again it is the US military that not only has sulfur lamps installed, but also possesses extreme long distance cameras which show the Earth’s concavity. This is no surprise as knowing the correct Earth model would be paramount to an organization like the military. It makes you wonder what other toys and knowledge they have at their disposal.

Optics has shown that the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect is not in any way evidence for a convex (or concave) Earth. The US military camera pointing up and showing “3 horizons” with the furthest one situated at the top of the picture cannot be explained by any convex or flat Earth model, only a concave one; and proves that the horizon we see with the naked eye is caused by optics. The only question is the reliability of this information and that we have no other examples with which to compare; so for that reason alone, this evidence is not a slam dunk. Does the US military camera show that the Earth is concave? Very likely (95%).

Altitude and the horizon

Another piece of evidence for a convex Earth are photos from space. These are all proven fake thanks to the thermosphere contradiction, with some of their images also showing plenty of evidence of fraud, such as “bubbles” in space and such like. Unless, of course, it is possible to take photographs through the glass of the space shuttle and the glass layer above the Earth for those few minutes being upside down, traveling at super-sonic speed with an outside red to white glowing hot temperature of 500 to 1500°C.

Just in case this scenario is possible, there is always Rolf Keppler’s demonstration that images of Earth are unable to show either a convex or a concave one as seen below:

convex earth1
One side of a convex or concave Earth?
convex earth2
Another side of the ball or bowl?
concave earth
Both above photos are two halves of Keppler’s concave Earth model.

What about those very high altitude amateur videos of balloons in space. They are more verifiable and show a convex and/or a concave and/or flat horizon. In fact, a few of the videos, when the camera is bobbing up and down in the wind, show both a concave and convex shape. When the horizon is above the vertical midpoint, the Earth looks convex; and vice verse when below. (Click on the gif below if it doesn’t move.)

convex-concave earth
Hey look, a convex-concave-convex-concave-convex-concave-convex Earth.

However, what is completely consistent is that at no matter what altitude the observer is at, the horizon always remains level with the eye. This was demonstrated by Rowbothan’s experiment of using a leveled clinometer on each floor of the Grand hotel opposite the Western pier in Brighton, England which was pointed at the sea. On each floor, the water seemed to ascend as an inclined (slanted) plane, until it intercepted the line of sight.

A clinometer
horizon always level
The horizon is always level with the eye on each floor of the hotel looking out at the sea.

This effect seems to remain with ever-increasing altitude, even when 1 mile high in a hot air balloon. At this height, the Earth is seen as a concave bowl beneath the observer.

concave balloon
An observer from a hot air balloon looks to be above a bowl when 1 mile high.

“THE APPARENT CONCAVITY OF THE EARTH AS SEEN FROM A BALLOON.–A perfectly-formed circle encompassed the visibly; planisphere beneath, or rather the concavo-sphere it might now be called, for I had attained a height from which the earth assumed a regularly hollowed or concave appearance–an optical illusion which increases as you recede from it. At the greatest elevation I attained, which was about a mile-and-a-half, the appearance of the world around me assumed a shape or form like that which is made by placing two watch glasses together by their edges, the balloon apparently in the central cavity all the time of its flight at that elevation.” -Wise’s Aëronautics.

“Another curious effect of the aërial ascent was that the earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared concave, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. . . . The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a concave rather than a convex body.” -Mayhew’s Great World of London.

“The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”–London Journal, July 18th, 1857.

Mr. Elliott, an American aëronaut, in a letter giving an account of his ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the earth from a balloon:
“I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aëronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede–actually to sink away–while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aëronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin below.”

During the important balloon ascents, recently made for scientific purposes by Mr. Coxwell and Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the same phenomenon was observed.
“The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.”–See Mr. Glaisher’s Report, in “Leisure Hour,” for October 11, 1862.

“The plane of the earth offers another delusion to the traveller in air, to whom it appears as a concave surface, and who surveys the line of the horizon as an unbroken circle, rising up, in relation to the hollow of the concave hemisphere, like the rim of a shallow inverted watch-glass, to the height of the eye of the observer, how high soever he may be–the blue atmosphere above closing over it like the corresponding hemisphere reversed.”–Glaisher’s Report, in “Leisure Hour,” for May 21, 1864.


The standard explanation is that this effect is an optical illusion. This could be a definite possibility, although no real supporting evidence has been presented. Coupled with the other very strong evidence for the Earth’s concavity already mentioned, this effect is probably not a fault of optics. Having said that, the mechanics of optics causes the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect which has fooled us into believing the Earth is convex.



Another piece of optical evidence for a convex Earth proves not to be proof after all; and on further investigation demonstrates a concave one yet again. Although on its own, any optical effect has the possibility of being an illusion. So, does the bowl-effect from a hot air balloon/up a mountain etc. and an eye-level horizon at continuing higher altitude show a concave earth? Maybe (50%).


Overall conclusion

The above four pieces of evidence demonstrating a concave Earth ultimately rest on the rectilineator and the US military’s camera, but these shoulders are very broad however.

  • Tamarack mines – 50%
  • Rectilineator – 99%
  • Lenses and the horizon – 95%
  • Altitude and the horizon – 50%

The probability that just one of the above items is correct is 99.99%. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is concave and we are living inside. As an added bonus, the latter two pieces have also proven that any photos from “space” and the horizon are not in any way evidence for the Earth’s convexity.

This only leaves convexity’s last refuge to be explained in a concave Earth model – the sky dome. Why do we see the Sun go around above our heads in a convex dome fashion if the Earth is concave?

The Sun is seen to travel along a convex sky.

You may, or may not, be surprised to hear that there is a hypothesis that not only explains this optical phenomenon very simply, but also the square law of gravity, the path of the Sun, and even the dynamo effect that the Earth is seen to possess. This is only a hypothesis and so may not be the correct one, but it is still worthy of an investigation. More on that in the next article.

Bookmark the permalink.

803 Responses to Concave Earth Theory

  1. Observer says:

    A goldmine of information being is in the link which I am about to share, a link which I found 30 minutes ago, first I would like to describe it as well as to describe my current understanding of reality.

    The website I am about to share, contains some interesting admittances which are very interesting to the readers who are able to view these sentences from the correct perspective of “we are living within the concave earth and thus ‘space’ is merely the 12,700 diameter ball of non-vast, surprisingly-tiny, space existing WITHIN the concave earth.”

    This website which I am about to share, thus contains sentences which begrudgingly and/or accidentally provide evidence of the concave earth understanding, and yet at the same time, to avoid being led into a fantasy falsehood, one must remember that this website contains there many, many, many purposeful and accidental phrases of misinformation and disinformation, claims which to the uncritical reader gives a false impression of reality.

    So to summarize this website which I am about to share, it is a website which contains “the official story”, and thus contains both embarrassing facts which they have been forced to admit due to the few awake researchers who have publicized what the actual human senses notice when the brain is actually turned on and actually reporting relatively correctly to the rest of humans what is actually being sensed from first hand sensing (a rare action indeed, for most humans, for most of the time) while concurrently this website which I am about to share contains many mistakes and lies, which, as mentioned already, is very interesting (to me, at least) to read while mentally noticing and mentally correcting the various false impressions which this entire collection of words imply (both purposefully by the higher authors who know the concave earth reality, and accidentally by the lower authors who actually believe the convex earth falsehood.)

    Basically, we here at WildHeretic’s site, are about to disect and analyze the official cannon of the convex earth belief system claims, a hundred-thousand-phrase collection of claims meant to support the huge grandest hoax of all: the hoax that we are living on the outside of a ball and thus surrounded by vast space. That grandest hoax is meant to hide the fact that we are living on the INSIDE of a ball, that space is tiny and surrounded by earth, and that earth is thus surrounded by vast amounts of rock, with the absolute possibility and high probability of tunnels existing, tunnels leading from here (this little 12,700km diameter bubble of air existing within the vast rock, a bubble which we call earth) to other locations far away (other little XX,XXXkm diameter bubbles of air existing in other locations within the vast rock, bubbles which could be rightly defined as “the place where the older, more technologically advanced beings, came through one (or more) tunnels long ago, entered this bubble known as earth through holes in the earth, created what we now call ‘humans’ (ourselves) through genetic splicing and genetic manipulation, and then set up this lamp that moves/rotates around within the concave earth, a lamp which we ‘humans’ now call ‘the sun’ as well as other things which move around, like the thing which we call ‘the moon.’)

    And let’s remember that if the lamp was created and placed in the center (or the semi-center, either way) of our 12,700km bubble of space which we call earth, then probably before the arrival of these lamp-placing energy parasites (parasitic in the physical labor sense, and in the physical food source sense, and in the vibrational “loosh” energy source (the energy produced by your brain and body while existing, energy which increases and decreases and changes in vibrational character depending on the “thoughts” and “feelings” that each being is pumping out during each moment of its existance, energy which most beings assume are NOT being absorbed by ‘higher beings’ but quite possible COULD be one of the three sources of energy which the creators of the lamp, as mentioned above, parasitically feed off of, in this concave loosh farm they set up, which we, the almost entirely non-cognizant sources of labor/meat/vibration live inside of every day.

    Probably, in our original form (and in this sentence “our original form is defined as “the form which our ancestors happened to have BEFORE our line of procreation was subjected to the first act of genetic splicing and genetic modification”) in that original form we were probably darkness-living / darkness-loving / darkness-thriving beings (since, before the lamp makers arrived through the tunnel(s) which lead to their bubble(s) in the vast rock which really is the substance of the actual reality in which our bubbles respectively sit (unspinning, of course, simply bubbles of space interspersed within vast rock, swiss cheese is the best image analogy to create a mental picture of this reality.)

    So, before the lamp arrived, we darkness-dwelling mammals produced each day, via the chemical factory located within the very center of our brains, a chemical factory called the pineal gland, a LOT more DMT each day, since darkness is what tells the body to produce more DMT, and light is what tells our body to produce less DMT. So before the lamp-placers came and placed their lamp circulating within this bubble (leaving periods of vital darkness every 24 hours so that we DMT producers can still get a tiny daily amount of unconscious DMT production time which we now call ‘sleep’ and ‘dreaming.’

    So anyway, this website I am about to share contains the official collection of claims which are currently used to support the granest hoax ever performed: the hoax of us NOT living within a loosh farm, a loosh farm set up by more technilogically advanced parasitic energy consumers which we would call ‘aliens from space’ except they are not from space (wince space is small) they are from far away spaces in far away parts of the huge rock swiss cheese actual universe.

    Here, just to whet your appetite, are just two sentences from this treasure chest of sentences: “At an altitude of approximately 100 miles (160 km) the sky is totally black. Stars do flicker and the area between stars is black since there is not enough air to scatter light rays.” –

    Alright, here is the treasure chest I have been waving around in a teasing fashion for the past many paragraphs, here it is, enjoy:

    View Comment
  2. karol says:

    Two private experiments confirming Concave Earth. Cheap and easy to do.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks karol. I noticed what you posted on truthseeker and had to add the ferry one to the horizon article. I’ll be doing this experiment myself sometime in the future when I get a zoom camera and extension. I have an ideal place to so in Ireland. Looking forward to that.

      View Comment
  3. Steve Christopher says:

    WH, can you come to South Padre Island? I can provide housing for you and yours. I am about to re-conduct the Rectilineator and would like your expertise. Let me know via email or facebook.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Steve, I was thinking of you yesterday having to do that experiment alone which is daunting for anyone. If I was in the locale I would be there like a shot, but there is no way for me to be there as I live in the Republic of Ireland and my wife works as a teacher (she isn’t interested in the concave earth and is working at this time of year).

      I’m a newbie to this too, but if you have any questions at all then we can chat and hopefully we can work things out. I need to get skype and give you an address. I’ll type the address in this comment when I have it.


      On the positive side, I will be visiting a place regularly in Wexford Ireland from now on which has an ideal beach and pennisula 30 miles away to take horizon readings with a telescopic lens. Wexford has some great beaches and a ferry harbour too. I’ll just have to get the camera. I saw the x60 Panasonic one and a x4.5 attachment which was pretty cheap. The quality of the photo with the cheap x4.5 attachment will be shit, but that’s fine. I’m only be doing it for the horizon. That’s what I have in mind for the future at least.

      EDIT: Steve, my Skype username is “wildheretic”. Call me anytime you see me online if you want.

      View Comment
  4. dan says:

    The Gofast Amateur Rocket proves zetetic flat earth. It launches over Nevada on July 14th 2014, 7:30AM and witnesses the full moon over Australia high over the horizon.

    The heliocentric establishment holds that it should have only been 9% visible over the horizon.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I saw that argument on Youtube. To be honest I wasn’t sure either way.

      View Comment
      • dan says:

        It is my understanding that the concave model is trying to framework the heliocentric.

        That’s what I get from Stephen Christ’s material anyway. If that’s the case then this rocket launch would dispel that.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          The night sky is tricky because we have to make sure the observational data is correct to start off with. I don’t think I have heard anyone argue against the accuracy of Stellarium yet, so maybe software like that is pretty reliable. It’s tough with the illusion that bending light gives also.

          I haven’t really looked at the planets so I couldn’t comment on that.

          View Comment
      • Alex Fresh says:

        The Earth is invariably flat and light bends upwards as it extends away and falls below the vanishing point of the perspective vision as it comes toward the observer.

        View Comment
  5. What a bunch lovely open minded folk.
    A true Platonic Cyber Symposium dedicated to the trapping the truth with reasons Gambit, and not a bunch of people dogmatically preaching unassailable fallacies or truths, who usually miss the point entirely, and always omitting the Stone the builders forgot that Heisenberg and Bohrs so artfully reminded us of.
    Very impressive, and joy to behold.It actually gave me hope compared to usually prevalent venom spitting. I don’t know if you guys a right or not when it comes to this subject, but I know quality people when I see them.

    View Comment
  6. trigun says:

    Scripture don’t agree with another concave sphere so it has to be convex surface.
    Philippians 2:10 – So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth
    We would be those “under the earth” while those “on earth” would mean those on convex surface of earth.

    I think this will solve the mystery behind 24/7 light of the hollow earth said in The Smoky God book.
    Surely you have read Etidorhpa book which talks about what is called “soft white light” with no apparent source William Morgan and his guide the eyeless being encountered starting 25 miles below the surface.
    Joseph Cater in his book The Ultimate Reality says that light/radiation from the Sun not only is reflected by the Earths crust but also continues to penetrates Earths crust. Even Etidorhpa talks about this if i remember right. Joseph Caters says that soft electron disintegration is what causes that soft white light. It will continue to penetrate until it is out on the convex side and illuminate convex surface from all sides at the same time leaving no place for night so even if there happens to be reddish smoky sun, there will be no night. Joseph Cater is hollow earth believer but you can just invert the diagram in the image and think instead of soft electron sun, its concave soft electron layer above the convex surface illuminating that world, no shadows will exist on convex side.
    Beyond that would be the bottomless pit or void/hell if there really are no other outer stars or planets.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That is a plausible interpretation of that passage. I always interpreted “under the earth” meaning the underworld, but your interpretation is equally valid.
      I think in the KJB there is an even 50% spread of “in earth” and “on earth”. I don’t know if this is because of the different level of knowledge of the many authors, or mistranslations or not. In other words, I don’t know the legitimacy of “in heaven and on earth and under the earth”. Should it read “in heaven and in earth and under the earth”; or perhaps “in heaven and on earth and in the earth”?

      That is why the bible for me is such a hot potato.

      The soft diffuse light as the source of light for the “other side” of the Earth sounds ok, but I don’t believe that is how the Smokey God pair described how the other side was illuminated. If our Sun is illuminated their side with soft light, then is their smokey purplish Sun diffusing our side with its light? Thinking on a slightly different tact, perhaps the “other side” is more spirit like and has its own luminescence, like a dream world, which emanates not from penetrating sunlight necessarily, but from “matter” itself?

      I remember the caverns in Etidorpha being illuminated by soft light, but I can’t remember if they mentioned the source. I assumed it was self luminescence, which points more towards the spirit/dream state of being I think. I recall that gravity became less, until it was zero at one point. My take on that was that the telluric currents (originally emanating from the Sun) can’t penetrated that far down.

      I quite like the idea of soft electron disintegration. Could it be perhaps that there is less of that here due to the magnetic h-field in the Earth cavity which would hold everything together. Less magnetic “glue”, more leakage – hence more spirit and malleable shapes? Could it be that the “solidity” of our material world relies on its distance from the h-field? That brings up the other point. In the amazon jungle tale, the Indians also experienced the same less, then zero gravity when venturing downwards. However, after the halfway point, gravity got stronger again as they got closer to the other world. Eitdorpha experienced pure spirit instead. Could it be that there are only certain underground portals or tunnel systems to the other world (the holes near the poles being two of them). I think that is why I thought of the nerve cell idea. It is unformed aether or spirit (or soft electrons) which surround the concave Earth – the analogy is the watery solution outside the brain cell. But some paths lead to another brain cell – some tunnels lead to the other world. It’s just an idea.


      View Comment
      • trigun says:

        It makes more sense to me that Suns light/radiation penetrated throught earths crust and became soft light that evenly illuminates the deep caverns and outer earth to the point that no shadow will exist. If earth were to be viewed from the outer side space, it will look like the star. You should read The Ultimate Reality by Joseph Cater to know more about science behind this soft light/soft electron. This soft lights frequency is very close to the gravity or ether so it radily penetrates the solid matter. The smoky sun is reddish not purplish and is seen after going through the poles deep enough, i am also thinking that this sun may be artificial or this is where God sent the sinned angels, that reddish sun could be hell.
        The outer side of earth is definitely physical as the sanskrit speaking people have visited our side many times.

        They said soft light had no apparent source and later explained the source of light if i remember correctly. The soft light penetrates all the way through as it is etheric like the ether.

        Etidorhpa didn’t experience pure spirit, William Morgan was taught to have full control over matter so he can become a spirit or flesh at will. Outer earth is also the source of freemasons occult knowledge aparently.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          It makes more sense to me that Suns light/radiation penetrated throught earths crust and became soft light that evenly illuminates the deep caverns and outer earth to the point that no shadow will exist.

          Wouldn’t it make more sense that the Sun’s radiations are mostly not penetrating 25 miles deep? Otherwise wouldn’t we see soft visible light in a shallow cave rather than pitch black? Are these soft electrons merely the infra red spectrum in the shallow cave, which transform into the visible light frequencies further down? Possible I guess. Would it fit in with Carter’s theory of gravity being radiations in the low infrared spectrum? If this spectrum is transformed to a higher one such as visible light, maybe gravity as an effect ceases to exist? I don’t know to be honest.

          EDIT: Been thinking about this. Here is a stab in the dark theory: The negatively charged field moving up from the crust (after being charged by the Sun due to lightning strikes) would be Carter’s “soft electrons”. These soft electrons radiate light in the infra-red spectrum (including the very low infrared “Carter gravity” frequencies), hence we can use infra-red goggles to see in the dark. Now the further we go through the crust, the less charge reaches these depths. This means there is less positive current flow pushing downwards at these depths. Also, we are further from the h-field keeping the Earth together. The charge that is getting through excited the rock more because it’s atoms are more free to move about (vibrate) hence the soft electrons emit the visible light frequency. Hence gravity is not radiations in the low infra-red but rather those radiations are the effects of the positively charged telluric currents (gravity) and the strength of the magnetic h-field on matter. It is the positively charged telluric currents which is the real origin of gravity.

          The above is only an idea. I’d have to look into the zero g effect in Etidorpha to see if the soft glow was more visible or not, so as to amend this idea. For example, maybe the h-field is the primary determining factor and the charge travels right the way through the crust. This means that the positive telluric currents are approximately equally strong at great depths than at the surface, but matter is more free to move and vibrate at depth (further away from the Earth’s magnetic h-field and center; and also thick rock may dampen the field too) hence matter becomes “lighter” and whose soft electrons now emit visible light. Sounds better to me. Could be a mixture of both.

          The outer side of earth is definitely physical as the sanskrit speaking people have visited our side many times.

          Everything is “physical” in that sense. What piqued my interest is when one of the giants, which the Indians met on the “other side”, said that the returning Indians could meet the giants again in their giant world when the Indians were deceased in our world. This means there is a non-physical connection that doesn’t easily exist here. This points to spirit merely being that which is not or less affected by our Earth cavity’s h-field (magnetism). When they enter our world, they too become “physical” as they are subject to our h-field, just as we would be subjected to their environment if we entered their world. There have been plenty of anecdotal evidence of deceased people saying goodbye in the “physical” to loved ones. One involved a friend of mine and his family. Is it that this alive person is more in tune with the spirit? Perhaps. Or is it that the spirit can “tune down” more to the “physical”, like the story teller in Etidorpha BTW.

          This leads on to the giants in the bible. Some giants could well have come from this other world, and then in the post flood environment shrunk to our size in successive generations. This means that some of those giants could well be us. And vice verse if we went to their world. The Indians that stayed on the giant’s world grew to a size in between their previous Earth size and those of the giants. Perhaps their future generations became giant size.


          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Etidorhpa didn’t experience pure spirit, William Morgan was taught to have full control over matter so he can become a spirit or flesh at will.

          I think I remember him saying something to the effect of he was between spirit and flesh. Even better. Sounds like a true “multi-dimensional” being who can visit many worlds. He doesn’t need a UFO vehicle for that. I have a suspicion that pre-flood cycles were closer to this level of reality (between spirit and flesh) hence the longer ages and giantism etc.

          View Comment
    • Hebrew Logician says:

      To the contrary, the original untranslated text of Philippians 2 (in the ancient Greek) does not indicate a convex or concave earth. In fact, one could even argue that “under earth” actually refers to snakes and over organisms that dwell under the ground. As it is literally translated as “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend — heavenly, and earthly, and underground.” Also, @Wild Heretic the reason that there is variation in the translations of Philippians 2:10 is because of the discrepancy in the original text.

      View Comment
  7. trigun says:

    This is intriguing. :)
    This guy says auroras are actually energy leaving earth.
    Same is said by hollow earthers that direction auroras is up not down.

    Now since we actually live inside the earth, what does that tell us?
    Right, energy is coming in from outside! :)

    This means that the inner sun smoky god book talks about is actually the outer sun earth actually orbits! Cause of auroras.
    So what if heliocentric model isn’t actually invalid, only invalid to us who live inside the earth?
    Heliocentric doctrine came from masonic occultists anyway and Etidorhpa book confirms masonic connection goes all the way to inner earths actually outer earth (convex side).

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yeah, that was my first thought too regarding the hollow earth being the convex earth, but it doesn’t work with the Smokey God description. Does this mean that the book is really fiction or that the “outside” of the Earth isn’t the convex side as experienced when going through the pole holes?

      The problem lies in its contradiction with the entire smokey god world having constant daylight everywhere all the time, which means it can’t be convex, unless light is bending fully around… and yet they sail through the Earth’s north pole and come out its south.

      If both are true and light isn’t bending around fully then I can only resolve the contradiction by looking at the other world as also being concave and that the connection between the two is kind of another dimensional one, or vortexian portal; possibly like a synapse in a brain so that the two worlds are connected by two tunnels at both poles (a little bit like this

      … or perhaps that world is overlayed onto ours and the pole holes are one way to access it via “dimensional” portals so to speak, i.e. there is no here or there.


      View Comment
  8. trigun says:

    WH, can you ask Steven Christopher to make a video named:
    “Top 10 Reasons We Know Why Earth is Concave”

    I think its very important to debunk this misleading video. :)
    If possible make it same way this video is made.

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *