(Author’s note: I’ve archived the old concave Earth theory article here for past reference). This new article is split into 10 pages for easy download. Each page is accessed under the ads at the end of the article or via the link before that. I’ve also now kept the menu at the top of each page for easier navigation.
There are six pieces of direct evidence, that I know of, which purport to show that we live inside a concave Earth (Dyson sphere). None of this evidence is 100% conclusive at the moment, but one item is very close. There are also three pieces of indirect evidence which by process of elimination usually rule out the three other models – convex heliocentric, convex geocentric, and flat earth.
Direct evidence
1. Old maps
2. Modern maps
3. 19th century balloon observations
4. Tamarack mines
5. Laser between two posts
6. Rectilineator
Indirect evidence
7. Huge horizons
8. Binocular effect
9. Bendy light
10. Overall conclusion
Direct evidence
1. Old maps
Donald Sarty (YT name: Sumstuff52) has found old maps in the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection dating from the 17th, 18th, and even as late as the 19th century (but mostly 18th) whose latitude and longitude lines have been curved “the other way” than we are used to. This curvature gives them the appearance of concavity rather than convexity. Below are a few examples out of many.
 Japanese map from no later than 1865. |
 A Dutch map created no later than 1799. |
 Another Japanese map dated 1796. |
 An English map dated between 1737 to 1739. |
 Another Dutch map possibly made in 1696. |
 A German map dated to 1738. |
How did these maps come about? We can only speculate, but there are a couple of clues. 1. After checking quite a lot of these maps, the earliest date I found which showed earth as a concave sphere was 1625, with most of the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection dated between early-and mid-18th century (1700 to 1770?). 2. All these maps from this collection show California as an island or with the peninsula much higher up than where it is depicted today. Was this because of bad cartography via insufficient knowledge? Not exactly; at least according to this website:
Although explorers and map makers as early as 1548 knew that California was a peninsula, many maps from the 17th and 18th centuries depict California as an island.
If they knew the truth but still drew California as an island anyway, were these maps copied from much older sources – pre-1548? Correct source maps of California may not have been available to the cartographer and so older source maps had to be used. Perhaps these world maps are collections of much older smaller maps of local areas which show neither convexity nor concavity, such as this one from 1548. Could California really have been an island or a pennisula at the time of the creation of the source map? Salton Sink is below sea level and so is Death Valley above it. You will also see lots of lakes above death valley nearly all the way up to Seattle. This is a definite possibility.
However, a few later concave sphere maps (but still pre-1800), outside the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection, show California as it is today. Here are a couple below which show California more or less correctly. The north pole looks very interesting too.
 A world map drawn sometime between 1472-1700 (probably 1600s) shows California a little bit more correctly. |
 Payne map from 1798 showing Earth’s concavity and California correctly. |
Most importantly, if you type in “map of the earth 1600” into an image search engine, nearly all the maps of the entire “globe” show a concave sphere. The same applies to “ancient maps of the earth” or “ancient maps“. Even typing “globe” into the keywords – “ancient maps of the globe” brought a total of five convex old world maps with many more concave ones evident.
Donald’s video showing only a very small handful of ancient concave maps. |
This shows that nearly all the cartographers in the renaissance (early 1600s) thought the Earth was a concavity, not a convexity. What happened at this time? The “primitive” man idea is ruled out because Concave Earth Theory (CET) is counter-intuitive. Previous to early 1600 AD only Plato believed that we lived inside a concave Earth (Phædo). The Earth (e.g. water) looks like a flat plane to the horizon and so an uneducated man would presume that the Earth was flat. Mathematicians and astronomers in the Middle Ages presumed the Earth was geocentric convex, thanks largely to the publication of Ptolemy’s Algamast… or so we are told. This latter model is also intuitive, as the heavens look to be rotating around the Earth.
If CET was suddenly discovered by a group of cartographers around 1600 AD, was it discovered through experiment or through a new religion/philosophy? Science was extremely fledgling if non-existent in 1600 AD; although mankind may have been able to have reproduced something akin to the 1897 rectilinear experiment privately. The Rosicrucians for example were rumored to be scientifically far ahead of their time in the 1600s. What new philosophy or religion could have sprung up around 1600 AD to influence cartographers to produce cavity maps? At this time, neither religion nor experiment purporting Earth’s concavity is documented anywhere that I know of, but that is not to say these documents could perhaps exist or that the experiments were either deliberately not documented (private), or the documents have been lost.
Either way, these maps aren’t supposed to exist within the official history of cosmology… yet they do. We are told the cosmological transition is from geocentric convex in the Middle Ages to heliocentric convex in the enlightenment era until today. All ancient world “globe” maps should therefore be convex, yet they are nearly all concave. Something is glaring missing from history.
The official story has been shown to differ from reality with Newton. It is said that Newton thought that gravity was a pull by the large mass of the Earth, yet in his letters it is shown that he thought gravity was the exact opposite – a push on mass by “spirit”. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to assume that Copernicus and/or Galileo really thought that the Earth was concave rather than convex. Who has the power to hide or even forge documents? Who educated the masses in the early-to-mid 19th century? The Church.
Conclusion
Overall there is a good possibility that the original knowledge-holders had discovered that the Earth was concave by rational means, but we can never know for sure… and if they did, I can’t find any documents to show this. These maps should at least pique the interest of the curious mind however; and show that Concave Earth Theory is definitely not new. On that basis I give this piece of evidence only a 10% chance for a concave Earth.
What if the Sun comes few 100 kilometers closer to the earth during spring/summer seasons? I think that is the reason for fast increase in heat during these seasons while in winter season sun is further away causing colder temperatures. So starting at spring equinox sun begins to come closer to earth while at fall equinox, sun begins to go further away. Suns coming close will also heat up the glass sky.
View CommentIn my theory that doesn’t happen, but it is only a theory.
View CommentOk. WH. More than 24hs to pass a comment?!
View CommentGo bless yourself.
” Neither quantitative nor qualitative researchers ever discerned an “aether drift” correlated to the (supposed) rotations of the “earth in space”. Quantitative science took this supposition as proof that no motional reference exists.”
This isn’t correct.
View CommentAether Drift has been detected and this, many times.
Even Relativists trying to prove Time Dilation, did in fact only bring the evidence for Aether Drift.
Interesting. Any links? Could prove useful.
View CommentA very good, rational article, which I did read with pleasure.
View CommentThe only missing part is the behaviour of the Aether in the Atmosphere, directly over the ground and the corresponding behaviour of Light in this Aether.
It is very difficult to find a fixed point of reference in Nature.
That is a bit much for me at this moment in time, although I have had an idea or two.
I’ll tell you the idea now. I think matter is an alternating magnetic field (Gerlach experiment). Therefore, EM waves are constantly being emitted (as EM waves are being produced by alternating magnetic fields – see radio waves). I think this interpretation is foundational. Now when I spin my spoon in my coffee in the morning I produce one large vortex. When I spin it the other way (which I always do when stirring food and drink for some reason), I notice one or two or more very small vortices are formed which spin out away from the center of the liquid until they dissolve. I think these vortices are EM waves in the “aether” which are being produced all the time. It is easy to see how these are produced. When the direction of the large magnetic vortex is reversed it creates a counter flow inside the large vortex, with the original vortex flowing the other way, so little vortices are created and spin out. You will also notice turbulence in the counter spinning. This I believe is friction and creates heat. There are probably other ways to create these EM vortices without the constant counter-spinning which creates the heat side effect. I have a few ideas there too, but I will leave those to myself.
I would be sorely tempted to use this foundation to build up matter, its properties and bonding; maybe search out other experiments which also point to this… or not.
WH
View CommentWH any way we can get a drawing of how you envision this? I’m with you on thinking the Moon could be the reflected sunlight. but I have so many people needing to see it.. I figure once you feel comfortable with your findings you will share your secret with the world… great work again as always…
View CommentIt is very early days yet Mac. The moon was extremely high last night. I am thinking it was having to do with direction of the plasmasphere rotation. Anyway, there is a small hiccup and that is I had envisaged the moon reflection rotation around the Sun to be going clockwise, but the sunspots (plasmasphere) travel anti-clockwise in the same direction as the Sun travels in the cavity. Otherwise it fits too well. I’ll keep observing the moon and thinking about it.
I hope to get a fully mapped out path of the moon and cause like I did for the Sun, but that won’t be ready for at least a year I’d say, probably longer… if it all works out of course.
EDIT: The moon reflection around the Sun must move clockwise to agree with what I am seeing so far. I wonder if there is a counter current to the sunspot rotation that causes it? I know that electrons (negative current) moves in the opposite direction to positive current in (or is that around?) a wire. If we look at standard electricity generation here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir.html
then we can easily apply that to the Sun. The magnetic south is the geographic north pole in the earth cavity. The Sun (metal wire) in my model does move a bit perpendicular to the magnetic cavity current. The Sun moves slightly out from equinox to solstice and in towards the center from solstice to equinox (perpendicular direction). This would create a positive current moving clockwise around the Sun, whereas the electrons would move anti-clockwise. So, sunspot rotation would be caused by electron diffusion to the West (anti-clockwise), and the moon reflection rotation is caused by positive current flow to the East (clockwise).
That would work.
View Commentlove the work brother. I was able to see the moon last night too. like you said its path was higher than the night before. i will be watching this year with you.. anything i notice i will be sure to pass along..
View CommentI could do one without vertical inclination, but it will take too long to do and it is still in the idea stage so I won’t do it yet. Just picture the reflection from the back of the Sun (left side in this diagram), detach it from the line going through the center and move the reflection around clockwise. Full moon is how the diagram stands now. New moon is the fully detached reflection having rotated 180 degrees so that it is inline with the daylight side and so on.
View Commenthttp://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/noon-sun-high-latitude-curve-rays-all.jpg
Fascinating. First time I have seen / noticed the concave lat / longitude markings. Unmistakable once pointed out. Huh.
View CommentI know. What is more startling is that a whole massive chunk of history has been wiped out over this time period. Only the maps remain. At least one group wants to keep us in the dark. It’s fun speculating and throwing conspiracy theories out there as to who, but I’m not bothered at the moment who the dark forces are, just that I recognize that they exist and to find out a little more of the truth.
View CommentTo be fair I guess: a skeptic would say that it’s not a concave earth model as much as a flattened sphere effect which the cartographers sketched. That is, a sphere whether concave or convex experiences distortion and this is an acknowledgement of that. For example, if you sketched a grip on an intact orange peel then flattened it against a counter – the grid lines would distort.
Me I tend toward believing that Earth is a penal colony for rebellious souls.
View Commentmake that “sketched a grid…”
View CommentAbsolutely. But they put the lines the opposite way than history said they should have.
Certainly we would fit that description lol 🙂
View CommentThe moon is the back of the sun. It appears convex as the back of a mask appears convex despite it being concave. The earth is concave and along with the glass sky throws out so many possibilities it is hard for mere men to study and understand. But the moon is not there. Yet it is there because the sun and moon come together. They are created together because they are two sides of the same coin. The bible says earth is created then sun and moon. Krishna says in Vedas he is sun and moon. Together. They always go hand in hand. You can see stars through the illusion of course. It can appear that the clouds go in front of the moon even but if you go above those clouds you will see the moon still the same distance from you. It is thus like a rainbow which depends on the subjective. It is not a rock. It is not created by people other than the original person who everyone seems to have forgotten about. Your work is good.
View CommentThanks Chandra. It is interesting to explore alternative ideas. I think a lot of us are at the testing phase now. The debate was very 2013. It is nearly 2016 which will be the year of reality and the end of marketing. A lot of tests will be carried out over the next few years. The more the merrier.
When/if proven that the earth is concave, well, bye bye space marketing and a lot of other things sold to us as true.
View CommentChandra can you tell us the source of your information? Is this something your heard about? read? or just came up with it on your own?
Hey Wild 🙂 I was looking at the moon the other day and I had an interesting thought. If the heavens are a ball of perfectly clear water about 7000 miles in diameter over our heads and the Sun is revolving around it, then the moon could very well be the reflection of the Sun filtered through what is effectively a Crystal Ball. The massive pressures of a thousand miles deep of water could account for sonoluminescence or stars could simply be pockets of reflective material suspended in the relatively still waters of the great crystal ball, that are lit by the, always on, light bulb Sun of ours.
Some study into the optical properties of Crystal Balls might be in order. Especially if the angle of view creates the moon phases effect and especially an eclipse effect. Now for this to work it would mean that one side of the Sun always faces down so the backside would always be shining straight into the crystal clear heavenly waters. A ‘balanced’ ball could do this. Then relative geographic positioning would give the effect of a monthly cycle, eclipses, etc.
So the moon would be an actual object as I have always suspected, its just that its the Sun… (is a perfect irony at least lol)
When I observe the Sun through a telescope with a Sun filter the ‘plasma’ of the light bulb blocks the surface except for the black spots which if you place a spotlight at a camera you will see everything behind the spotlight it looks black anyway (not that the moon is known for being colorful). Could it be that when filtered through thousands of miles of a ball of crystal clear water we would get the anomalous moonlight glow but have enough light filtered as to be able to see the bulb’s (sun) and filament (moon) itself?
Also monthly lattitude shifts of the Sun could cause the Lunar ‘cycle’ effect maybe? Or perhaps the Suns distance to the crystal ball changing its focal point? Meaning the Sun would bob up and down a bit each month in relative distance to the crystal ball changing the focal length and causing a phase effect.
A quick study into the optics of Crystal Balls should prove or disprove this pretty easy. Focal point of observer I think would be a very critical factor in the Eclipse effect. But if you can get a moon ‘phases’ effect with a ball of light through a crystal ball at the proper focal points that would be very noteworthy.
We have to keep in mind the relatively MASSIVE size of the crystal ball and what effect that would have to the observer on the ground. This would explain why often the Sun and moon are seen in the sky at the same time as well.
Perhaps something about the magnetic fields could explain why there would be water ‘polarized’ in such a manner so that some accumulates in the center and the rest is pushed to the edge creating a neutral zone of gravity big enough to drive a Sun through. Could it be that like magnets have north and south that gravity also has north and south?
And on the atomic level…
Maybe neutrons are neutral because they dont really exist per se but the ‘reflection’ made by a proton through a crystal ball in the center of every atom does exist and therefore must possess independent properties like light reflected off a filtered mirror. Is this why protons and neutrons are always equal in atoms? One is just the reflection of the other? Time being relatively much faster in smaller particles by reason of common sense, the number of protons and neutrons we think are in there could just be relative to the size and mass of the cave, sun, and crystal ball of which it is made, and that actually all atoms have 1 sun and 1 crystal ball and 1 hard metallic shell, all of varying sizes and shell properties. When they smash atoms together and destroy worlds at the Hadron Collider the pieces they think are this or that are just fragments of the electron shell that they think is tiny when it is actually a large crust containing a Sun and a Crystal ball that has been smashed to pieces in a violent fire of electrical discharge.
Even the slightest chance of this being true is worth stopping all the smashing of atoms until we KNOW we aren’t destroying worlds as that would be very very very bad karma for us all.
And some people think the concave Earth is a crazy idea hahaha
I give you… Atom Worlds.
Anyways keep it up brother the site is looking real good 🙂
View CommentI’m interested in the micro, but haven’t looked looked much into it as of yet.
The site could be a lot better with additions and revisions to the early stuff and adding the night sky in depth, but like Steve, I will concentrate on testing this year. It’s time.
View CommentThen how is it I see them both in the sky today..hmm looks like two different objects to me.
View CommentThe theory behind the moon being the back of the Sun is that light bends by different amounts in a concave earth hence you can see both the moon and the sun at the same time sometimes. I’m going to draw a diagram I think to show this.
View CommentJesus reading these comments gives me a headache, you guys are all a bunch of brainless idiots, it is not hard to see what the moon is, looking at it with any telescope you can clearly see it is a rock. What about the planets and their moons I can watch orbit them? I am curious as to what you think those are?
View CommentVisit the forum.
View CommentJustin = lost
View CommentNice try genius but for a good part of the month you can actually see the moon in the sky during the day. This means the moon and Sun at the same time as two separate bodies in different parts of the sky.
View CommentYes, we know all this. 🙂 Keep following the discussions.
No, it doesn’t because light bends in the cavity at different rates at different times during the day and night. Hence when the observations of the moon are complete this year, I’ll take the proposition that the moon and sun are the same thing and see how the model works. I already know how it works for tonight’s and last night’s showing.
Nobody knows for sure, it’s only an idea.
Tonight, the moon (at just after 6pm) is following the path of the Sun at the equinoxes (very, very roughly). The moon is just behind where I saw the sun today but about twice as high up off the ground.
View Commentif I get a clear sky id love to help observe in ohio for you… just not sure how you are conducting experiment? some people just cant see how the CONCAVE model works… but once you see it YOU GET IT!!!!
View CommentExactly. Once you get it, there is no going back. I’ve figured out the moon path and phases as well. It’s reflected sunlight being pushed around by the Sun’s plasmasphere. Sunlight during the day isn’t pushed around the plasmasphere because it is the main direct light and is far too strong. A small portion of the Sun’s light is pushed around however, and this is reflected off both the front and back of the Sun which forms the “moon” and its paths and phases. A new moon is invisible because the reflection is once again inline with the daylight Sun (front of the Sun). Get it? I felt good after finally getting it. I could have only done it by observing the moon in the sky and then predicting where and when it it was going to show up next. I feel I am 100% right on this.
So if nothing else good came about from getting that x60 zoom bridge camera, then the money was very well spent. I couldn’t figure out the moon looking at it on paper.
View CommentI think you are going to find that the sun and moon are one and the same, just different effects. What I can’t figure out is which one is creating the other one or if they are both created by something else altogether. Did you ever see the video Crrow777 posted showing the anomaly on the moon within the same 24 hours there was a sun flare on the sun in the exact spot? I’ll see if I can find both videos…
View CommentHere’s the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H72k5-VcnYY
View CommentThanks for that. it’s great videoing the moon yourself. I’ve found it becomes a lot easier to visualize how it would look in a certain model. The moon I have been recording looks just like the video above except his camera looks to have a much higher exposure in low light. I can’t see stars in my mini sensor high zoom bridge camera. My take on that light point at the edge of the moon is just that it is part of the of the moon being lit up by the sun. It’s really a continuation from the crescent even though there is a non-lit part before it to the lit crescent part.
When I videoed the moon a a few days ago during the end of its last quarter phase, for two or three days in a row there was always a “star” at the same distance from the moon to the right. It followed the moon around. The star was still visible when the moon disappeared when the Sun came up. I’m guessing this “star” was Venus.
View CommentI’ve had a bit of a breakthrough regarding the moon and how it reflects light in terms of the moon being reflected light from the back of the Sun. I was mapping out the reflected beams in my head to what I have been seeing in the sky the last week or so. I have found that the bend of the light rays match the same as the bend of the Sun’s rays except that these moon rays (reflected sun rays) are revolving around the Sun itself, NOT the Earth cavity. It also explains the phases perfectly.
The only thing I know to immediately revolve around the Sun is the Sun’s plasmasphere. So I looked up its revolution time and lo and behold sunspot rotation was first discovered in the 19th century to take 27.28 days. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/explore/lessons/diffrot9_12.html
Guess how fast the moon is said to take one revolution around the Earth? 27.3 days – https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061210034237AAdG0wW
Here is another:
“As any amateur who has studied sunspots drift slowly across the sun from day to day though special filters would know, the Sun’s rotation period is about 27 days.” – http://www.smh.com.au/news/Big-Questions/Does-the-sun-revolve-on-an-axis-or-is-it-stationary-in-the-middleof-the-solar-system/2005/06/10/1118347582434.html
I know sunspot rotation is supposed to be between 25 and 35 days from equator to pole, but actual observed times seem to be about 27 days.
That is 90% of the moon puzzle solved right there. Just the moon and sun eclipses to go.
View CommentNo, I think I missed that video. Do you have a link?
View CommentHow would you prove concave earth, if there would be no Sun, only Moon. Moonlight does not bend.
View CommentHi Space, long time no hear.
We don’t know, Space, if moonlight bends or not as we haven’t tested it. Could it be tested like the bendy light experiment, but at night with no light-bulbs at the sighting board? The moon would have to be very bright. Would it be bright enough? I’m not sure. Interesting experiment if it could be done. I assume it bends like sunlight or the light-bulbs or any other non-coherent diffuse light, but less, because it is night time.
View CommentHi WH,
Did you noticed, that when moon sets, it not changes color. Sun when sets, becomes orange, red, various colors, atmospheric effects, bending light, horizon effect.
View CommentMoonlight seems not affect atmosphere. Need to check somewhere by seashore, disappearing ship effect. Of course, must be full moon. Some photo cameras can make photos at night.
Great observation. Never thought of that! I’d like to check that myself. It has to be because at night light bends the least, hence the lack of distortion which they say is down to atmospheric refraction, but must really be down to the electric effect on the bend of light. Otherwise the moon would show the same distortion as the Sun on the horizon, but doesn’t.
You’ve got something there.
View CommentI have seen the moon with a brown hue at moonrise and almost twice the size also when it rises, like it is being magnified, interesting stuff
View CommentTimelapse Moon rising
http://i.stack.imgur.com/TTrCz.jpg
Timelapse Moon setting
http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/markermoorephotography4.jpg
Moon disappeared today Don, this morning. It just fades out. I’m going to capture it tomorrow morning on camera. I never thought to film it this morning.
View Comment