Old 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.

8 Responses to Old Concave Earth Theory

  1. Wise One says:

    Have you seen Brian Mullin’s video regarding the Rectilineator experiment? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx1OMOcA_To

    View Comment
  2. David says:

    Pablo has the communist and his men killed at the end of the episode to keep them quiet right in front of the concave Earth map. Is this symbolic of the NWO mobsters killing all concave Earther’s one day? Like a warning or predictive programming?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hope not! 🙂 Well, if they do, I’ll be in a parallel world doing the same thing, so my experience will be the same 😉

      I’m riding this one out.

      View Comment
  3. David says:

    Hey WH

    I was watching Narcos last night, a series about Pablo Escobar, episode 4 and there is an old concave earth map. You first see it at 34:40 (on the torrent I watched) and again at the end. Its on the wall of the M19 communist rebels leaders house. Pretty strange I thought, no way it was there by accident. Check it out…


    View Comment
  4. TruthSeeker says:

    Hi, it seems Ulysses Morrow and Cyrus Teed’s Rectilineator experiment has been debunked. Please update it unless you can prove Steven Christ’s refutation is wrong. Invite him here to debate on this so people can understand why this experiment should stay valid (if it is) and on this page.

    View Comment