The Flat Earth Theory

 A Flat Earth Map

The Earth Is Flat

A couple of weeks ago I thought this was a ludicrous thought and so when Mark Sargent (Flat Earth researcher) was on Canary Cry Radio, well I was sort of disappointed they weren't going to talk about something relevant. Thankfully, I decided to download the episode on my archaic MP3 player and listened to it at work that day. I haven't been the same since.

 As of now after further research answering the initial doubts I had, I'm convinced we are living on a flat earth! It's actually obvious when you finally break free of the matrix New World Order group think. And, yes this is another conspiracy from the powers to be. This could be considered the biggest hoax they have hoodwinked the people into yet (which is saying something).

 Now, I'm not going to go over every single argument here in this simple blog post, and I'm not going to begin a flat earth blog to begin to become a leader in the field. I do want to give a layman's approach to this deception we have been fooled into believing. There's some very good research you can find on YouTube on this, as well as websites and interviews. Just steer clear of the dis-info agents called the Flat Earth Research society. They are sort of like the Alex Jones of the New World Order conspiracy. 

Some notable leading researchers that I've found are Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent, and Math Bolylan. These guys know their stuff and think for themselves.

 So, how does a plane flying from New York to London end up having the same times either way they fly? Whether flying east or west, the plane takes the same time to get there?! The plane takes the same time to get to it's destination whether flying from New York to London, or from London back to New York! Right there, this proves that there is no ball earth spinning at a 1000mph eastward as the scientific elite tell us!

 Why can a boat see a lighthouse from the sea 80 miles away? The curvature of the earth wouldn't allow a lighthouse to be seen that far away, but it can be seen on a flat earth. Every mile away an object is it would go lower and lower, to the amount of about a half a mile below the curved horizon from 80 miles away, but the lighthouse is only around 200 ft high! Explain that one.

 Let me just start talking to you here: NASA is a satanic organization created by the Nazi's that came over after WW2, Freemasons run NASA and are the astronauts, there are no planets spinning around the sun – they are  close in stars and lights, the sun and the moon are circling around the top of the flat earth from only about 3,000 miles away and they are the same size, there are no satellites, there is no real pictures of the earth that are not manipulated- and only one that is used in all the books from Apollo missions window!, Antarctica surrounds the disc shaped earth's edges, the Bible talks about the earth being fixed and unmovable, the Bible calls the earth a circle (not a ball), the horizon is always eye level no matter how far you go up into the air (20,000 ft. a non-government camera has been), ancient cultures all thought the earth was flat until 500 years ago when Jesuit Priest said otherwise (Jesuits!), Antarctica is off limits to private industry although it has vast resources, no private explorer can explore the North Pole or Antarctica, and on and on....

 There is so much evidence that the earth is actually flat it's unbelievable. I learned about the hollow earth theory before a couple years ago, and I actually thought there was something to that, but it didn't resonate with my soul like this Flat Earth thought has. Spiritually, this reality of a flat earth settles in my soul and being with the up-most peace and reality. It's as if I knew it all along. I mean, flying around on a spinning earth in some vast universe just never clicked with me. From all observance, we are stationary and the earth is flat, not spinning and I don't care what some Jesuit says about some un-provable theories they made up about gravity and the solar system – it's all a lie!

 Now, I've brought up some points, but as I said you are going to have to research this more on your own. I know you'll have some questions as I did, but as far as I'm concerned, those questions can be answered much better than the questions you'll start to have about this earth being a ball that is flying around the sun.

 Now, about the motive of this conspiracy. This is in fact one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that I've come up with of why they came up with this ball earth theory. As I said before the Jesuits came up with this theory with a fellow named Nicolaus Copernicus (b. 1473 – d. 1543) who was a Jesuit.

 By brainwashing people into believing the world is a ball in a vast solar system the elite New World Order, Illuminati, Vatican Jesuits, Mystery Babylon, could gain the worship of the sun and become the scientific elite, which everyone was in awe and dependent on. Do you get that...

 By thinking everything revolves around the sun and the sun is 400 times bigger than the earth, then the importance of our tiny little earth lives becomes minimized to say the least. By showing that mankind is so advanced that they can land on the moon with one of their crafts shows that we don't need some God that the ancient dummies believed in. By having this galaxy and this solar system they could formulate and speculate there had to be life on other solar systems which are around every star we can see that is millions of light years away supposedly!

 So, by making this silly spinning earth thing up, they could then pave the way for evolution, the Big Bang Theory, Alien life on other planets, a scientific elite, the worship of a centered sun, the deity of modern science which can “space travel”, and basically throw us off our very common sense itself by conditioning us to not believe what we know to be true- that we are stationary and the celestial bodies are revolving around the earth!

 OK, this is very exciting to me, and I'm just the type of guy who cares less what anyone thinks. I simply want the truth! I'm that convinced that we are indeed living on a Flat Earth, and let me explain if I can how this has helped me feel even closer to God and his creation.

 Well, first of all I know what His creation is now, and so I can appreciate it that much more. When I go outside and look at this beautiful earth I can imagine all of this is made for us by God. We are the center of it all! The stars and lights in the sky are there for us to tell the seasons and that is exactly what the Bible says. When reading the Bible, it comes alive in new ways, and I can see where it over and over again alludes to a Flat Earth and not a spinning ball earth revolving around the sun. Your going to have to do your own research about this.  The Bible verses you need to know to understand the Bible describes a Flat Earth.

 In general, this is a very positive revelation to me. Mostly the conspiracies that I've uncovered through the help of many sincere Bible believing Christians have been hard to stomach because of the evil they uncover, but the Flat Earth uncovers a wonderful truth. 

 I mean the amount of people deceived by this deception is so encompassing. Even the Christian remnant believers who I listen to are almost all ball earthers... except for maybe now Canary Cry Radio and Rob Skiba... 


Is This the 2nd Biggest Conspiracy of All?

The recent rise of the Flat Earth Movement and those pushing the flat earth theory has taken the webosphere and blogosphere by storm. It is, I would say, the 2nd biggest conspiracy of all. The interest has apparently been started and spearheaded by Eric Dubay, author of The Flat Earth Conspiracy. The idea of a flat earth has now attracted and converted some high-profile names, such as Andrew Basiago, the man who claims he teleported to Mars as part of Project Pegasus in the 1960s and 1970s. Basiago, by the way, revealed in this interview with Lisa Harrison that he intends to join the 2016 presidential race! Imagine the exposure a mass audience would receive if Basiago could start delving into topics such as teleportation, Mars colonies, extraterrestrials and the flat earth theory …

For the record, I am not saying I believe the Earth is flat, but I am open to the possibility. Clearly, more investigation needs to be done, and it would be wisest to admit we don’t know something rather than proceed as if we did – especially when the conspiracy cuts so deep and the deception has infiltrated every area of our lives. Socrates, the father of philosophy, showed that questions are more powerful than answers; indeed, his questions were so powerful that the leaders of Athens put him to death for them.

Let us never be afraid to ask questions – it is the only way we can learn and be truly sure of things.

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the idea that the Earth on which we all live could indeed be flat has ignited intense curiosity and healthy debate – and has already shaken people out of their apathy and generated critical thinking. This in itself is a victory for freedom, because once enough people start to question their reality in every way, the conspiracy will collapse, being only held up by deception and subterfuge.

It Sounds Crazy, but Open Your Mind …

Virtually everyone who first comes to the subject of flat earth (myself included) is thinking: “Flat earth? Are you serious? You must be kidding. That’s crazy! Don’t waste my time. That Makia Freeman guy has really gone off the deep end this time …” I know, I know. That’s how I first reacted to this topic. Let’s face it: we’re all conditioned to believe the world is arranged in a certain way. Right from the moment we go to school around age 5, we are shown miniature globes of the world and told the Earth is a ball. Our society makes fun of people we perceive to be crazy or behind the times by deriding them as “people who still think the world is flat.”

But how do you know the Earth is a globe? Only because you were told so by your teacher, who was told by someone else, who was told by someone else, who was told by someone else, who was told by some “authority” or “expert”. We already know the tendency humanity has for worshipping those outside of itself, for unquestioning obedience to authority, especially other people in uniform, white coats or black robes. Somewhere along the way as a child, you were probably shown some books with photographs, but as has been well exposed, space photos and videos are easily faked, as Freemason- and Nazi-controlled NASA knows very well. Those at the very top of the pyramid, who control the media, publishing houses and the education curriculum, do have the means to pull of such a grand deception.

Is Flat Earth the Mother of All Conspiracies?

Whether we live on a flat earth or globe earth is not some passing fad of little importance. If we have been deceived into thinking the earth is a globe when it is really flat, it conclusively proves just how easily we can be hoodwinked into believing lies and absurdities on a colossal scale. If we have been massively fooled about the very planet on which we live, we could have been fooled on any other topic in existence.

Is the debate over the flat earth the biggest conspiracy or the “Mother of all Conspiracies”? Not quite, in my opinion. It’s huge: I’d call it the 2nd biggest conspiracy. The biggest conspiracy though is forgetting Who We Are – infinitely creative, spiritual beings having a brief human journey – and allowing other entities to siphon off our life energy. This includes the issue of what happens when we die (i.e. whether we are forcibly recycled at the point of death through a soul net). Flat earth is a close second, but ultimately, the two issues are connected; authors such as James of the WingMakers have joined the two in their work (e.g. by describing our world as the Hologram of Deception and describing the phenomenon of forced reincarnation). The notion that we are entrapped in some kind of holographic quarantine is highly disturbing, yet deserves our full attention.

What is the Flat Earth Model?

The flat earth model contends that the Earth exists on a giant, flat plane, with the Arctic or North Pole at the center, and a giant wall of ice (the Antarctic) surrounding the entire disc and forming the circumference. The implication of this is that we live in a giant dome, and that “space” as we know it does not exist, and that all the planets and stars we see at night are like projections on the ceiling of a planetarium.

Let’s take a look now at the points for and against the flat earth model. Points For the Flat Earth Model

– Lack of visible or measurable curvature: The horizon looks flat to the eye. Researchers have claimed that the skyline of cities such as New York City and Philadelphia are visible 40-60 miles away from the ground, when the alleged curvature of the Earth should not permit them to be seen. The famous Bedford Canal experiment performed in 1838 by Samuel Rowbotham showed that a canoe or small boat was visible from 6 miles away along a river (when the curvature of the earth should have rendered it invisible below the horizon or line of sight). Is this light refraction or evidence of a flat earth?

– Lack of discernible spin: When an airborne plane is trying to land, if the earth were really spinning, it should be difficult for the plane to land. It would be landing on a moving target. Yet no planes appear to have trouble doing this or use a spinning earth in their calculations. Why not?

– Admiral Byrd’s Antarctic expedition: Admiral Richard E. Byrd was a courageous explorer who earnt the trust of the US Government. They sent him down to Antarctica on a military mission in 1947. He reported that in Antarctica he ran into UFOs – “vehicles which could travel from one pole to the other in less than an hour” as he wrote in his diary – and found his way into the center of the earth, “inner earth”, where the temperature was warm, vegetation grew and a Nordic race of people lived. Remember, this was a hardened, rational military man writing such things. In this video interview, he also reveals that beyond the South Pole there was still much of Antarctica left unexplored (an area the size of the USA in fact). After this Governments of the world joined forces and made Antarctica off limits and all trips there highly regulated. Why?

– The problem of the Sun’s heat: If the sun is really 93 million miles away, how does its heat travel through space (an apparent vacuum) to reach us? Can space conduct or transfer heat? If not, can the atmosphere of Earth take the sun’s light and transform it into heat? If so, how does that work? Has it been proven beyond all doubt?

– The problem of the Sun’s light: Sometimes you can see the sun’s rays coming in at wide angles. How could this be if they were all coming from 93 million miles away? From that distance they are essentially parallel. Does the atmosphere disperse them? If so, how? Has this been proven beyond all doubt?

– Strangeness around Southern Hemisphere flights: Why are there so few direct flights in the Southern Hemisphere? Why do planes flying from places like Sydney (Australia) to Johannesburg (South Africa) routinely go via places like Dubai in the Middle East, which is completely off course and out of the way? The direct flight would be around 12 hours and planes have enough fuel to do this without needing to stop. Why are planes’ GPS turned off during Southern Hemisphere flights, so that their exact trajectories can not be easily tracked?

Points Against the Flat Earth Model

– Satellites: How does the flat earth model deal with satellites? Do they exist or are they faked?

– Varying star constellations: You can see constellations in the Southern Hemisphere that you can’t see in the Northern Hemisphere, and vice versa. How is this possible on a flat earth?

– Other celestial bodies: Other celestial bodies appear to be globes, such as the Moon and the Sun, not to mention other planets. Why are they spheres and the earth is not?

– Center of gravity: On a flat plane, isn’t the center of gravity at the center of the plane? If so, then when we fall, why are we pulled straight down to the ground rather than towards the center (the North Pole in the flat earth model)?

– The Catholic Church supported the flat earth: The Catholic Church has been a leader throughout the last 2000 years of suppressing information, keeping people scared and ignorant, and ruling through fear and guilt. It is highly strange and out of character, therefore, that when it comes to this issue of flat earth, that the Church would be on the side of the truth. The Church killed (or condemned) at least 3 people for proposing the heliocentric model (Copernicus, Galileo, Giordano Bruno). If flat earth were true, why would the Church kill or condemn those proposing a false model when it has a history of hiding the truth?

Could the Earth be Both Flat and a Globe?

Finally, I will end this article by quoting Project Camelot’s Kerry Cassidy on the flat earth subject. She wrote:

“In my view the “flat earth” people are simply seeing things in a hyper dimensional (collapsing the wave) mode. They are seeing a Planet “plane-net” from the point of view that reduces everything out of the hologram view into a sort of continuum of unlimited horizons viewed condensed, as in, down to the “thought” of source vs. the multi-dimensional aspects which allow you and I to navigate and go deeper into the quantum moment for the purpose of ‘experiencing the whole’.

It is similar to the way we view time. We see time as linear when it is actually simultaneous. In reality, time is an illusion. All things happen simultaneously. Well, if space is viewed the same way you could in essence say there is no space … space is an illusion or hologram. Everything it is at the same time infinite and infinitesimal and can be reduced to a single point … zero point or simultaneity.”

As David Icke, the late Michael Talbot (who wrote The Holographic Universe), some Western scientists and many others have said, the world is a giant hologram, that looks, feels, smells, tastes and seems like something solid, but is actually mostly empty space made from energy vibrating at a slow rate. We live in a giant version of the Holodeck on Star Trek. Quantum physics has shown us that the atom can appear as a particle (matter) or a wave (energy) and displays characteristics of both simultaneously. The wave is all possibility until it “collapses” (due to our observation and intent) into a particle and solidifies.

Is it possible that flat earth people are looking at the “wave” aspect of the atom rather than the “particle” aspect? Could the Earth be flat on an unlimited plane, until it collapses into particle form and becomes a sphere?

It is an open question that remains to be solved, but meanwhile, it is greatly encouraging to see people taking such an active part in questioning everything around them, because it is only by asking the right questions that we can gain freedom from ignorance and enslavement.

Has the “Flat Earth Theory” Found A New Audience?

It’s the last thing that most would ever think they would have to make a case for in the modern world: why the Earth is indeed a globe, and not a flat plane covered with topographical features like mountains and valleys, drifting along like an island in space.

Strange as it may sound, this was precisely the kind of argument I recently found myself having to address, in response to a discussion that took place on an online radio show which apparently brought the so-called “flat earth theory” back into question… at least in the minds of some.

The host in question, Rob Skiba, had been interviewing a fellow named Mark Sargent, a man with a background in graphics and CGI, in which the two men had a lengthy discussion about whether evidence supported a cover-up to withhold information about Earth’s true shape from the public (to his credit, and I want to be clear about this, Skiba made it known at the outset that he doesn’t believe in the idea that our planet is literally flat, though admittedly, a strong sense of favor toward the idea seemed to remain present throughout the discussion).

One of my readers contacted me about the interview, and asked if I would consider listening to what the men had to say, which I did. Among the kinds of points addressed were the fact that NASA and other space agencies have continually released CGI representations of Earth over the years, and that only one supposed “photo” released by NASA actually exists, purporting to show our round globe. Furthermore, anecdotal claims have arisen over the years about visitors to Antarctica being driven away “at gunpoint.” Paired with the fact that world organizations such as the United Nations feature flat earth symbolism in their logos, all of these points are believed to be “evidence” that our world is, indeed, a flat circular plane contained under a dome… a reality which elitists are working hard to hide from the public.

The fact that such “flat earth theories” have lingered into the present day is really nothing new; consider websites like that of The Flat Earth Society, which just last year announced its intention to expand its social media presence. “To kick this off,” one flat-earther had written at their site, “we’ll be running a celebratory campaign that showcases our supporters all over the Disk… We will be regramming the photos across our social media network so people can see our supporters all across the world.”

One must ask themselves, how could someone really believe that the Earth is flat, despite what are now centuries-old determinations first made by the likes of Eratosthenes, who as far back as 235 BC was able to prove its roundness using mathematic calculations?

Let’s remember that Eratosthenes was able make such determinations about our Earth’s shape based on differences in the length of shadows cast by objects in two separate locations, one being the ancient Syene (now Aswan), and the other at Alexandria, on the day of the Summer Solstice. 

Despite being able to use mathematics to determine the Earth’s roundness as far back as 235 BC, the pseudoscientific interpretation of various data in modern times has nonetheless contributed to the continuation of “flat earth” theories. For instance, as discussed during Skiba’s radio program on the subject, many have taken issue with the fact that images that purportedly feature our planet are “digital composites,” which some interpret to mean that they are purely fabrications using CGI technologies.

In response to questions my reader had asked about such things, I recommended a page where several photos of Earth taken in recent years could be viewed, all of which are composites that were assembled from photos using satellite imaging technologies:

To give an idea of the language that I think has led to misunderstandings of what a “composite” or “synthesized” image actually is, I’ll include one of the captions from the images, which reads as follows:

“Over a period of six orbits on on February 3, 2012, the recently launched Suomi NPP satellite provided the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument enough time to gather the pixels for this synthesized view of Earth showing North Africa and southwestern Europe.”

Let’s look at precisely what “composite” or “synthesized view of Earth” actually means. What we’re talking about here are sets of images that cover large portions of the Earth, and at considerably high resolutions. Experts will take the entire set of images, and then collect and combine the most visually useful portions from specific frames, and produce new composites that help reduce the presence of things like cloud formations that might obscure visibility of geographic features below. Using this technique, famous renderings such as the various incarnations known as “The Blue Marble” have been achieved, and while assembled from more than one image, they are by no means complete CGI fabrications. Again, my impression is that during the “flat earth” interview in question, images like those linked above were interpreted as being entirely digital renderings, which simply isn’t the case. As far as their source, most of the images in the link above were obtained either via the Suomi satellite, or the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard the Terra research satellite.


Moving along to address other points, let’s head further south, and around to the idea that Antarctica holds the key to unraveling the “flat earth” secret. Specifically, I’m interested in these anecdotal reports that suggest how those who have attempted to go there and investigate have “been driven away at gunpoint.”

Sure, Antarctica seems like the last place many would actually choose to visit, and hence the place no doubt maintains an air of mystique about it. This is especially the case when considering all the rumors associated with “dangers” Admiral Richard E. Byrd purportedly encountered there during the ill-fated Antarctic expedition called Operation Highjump, which some have associated with post-war Nazi conspiracies.

The truth about our coldest continent, however, and the visitors it receives, is a very different story. It was estimated in January that some 37,000 tourists will visit Antarctica this year alone (though around 10,000 won’t actually set foot on shore), as discussed in a BBC article earlier this year that examined such things as the environmental impact of such heavy visitation. Additionally, as many as 5,000 people actually may reside there annually, at any of the various research stations located on the continent. In summary, if people visiting there were being “turned away at gunpoint,” it seems that at least some of the 37,000 or so planning on visiting would have said something about this.

Conspiratorial scenarios such as those addressed here help show us one thing: that those who become proponents of ideas such as a “flat earth theory” have convinced themselves that their proof lies not in tangible facts or data, but within the evidences of a perceived conspiracy to conceal the “real truth” from the rest of us… which is nonsense. This is not “proof” at all, and such ideas have little — if any — reliance on real facts. On the other hand, a broad history of testable, repeatable data spanning more than 2,000 years proves for us, without a doubt, that our Earth is indeed a globe; just like our moon which we can see clearly on most nights, and several planets further away that are very much like our own, made visible with as little as a telescope one can purchase online.

In conclusion, I would like to observe here that, generally, the attitude conveyed by many within the modern skeptical movement toward those who propose such “fringe” ideas tends to be one not only of dismissal, but also ridicule. In fairness, I think I can understand their frustration, especially in this case; it is indeed troubling that ideas such as this might find an audience today, despite centuries of scientific work aimed at properly educating the public at large, with hope of preventing such falsehoods from finding their way into modern belief systems.

Years ago, when Carl Sagan was met with pseudoscientific claims like these, of course he would differ just as strongly; but he would also rely on an evidence-based approach to refuting such ideas that was both educational, and conducive to dialogue on the issues, rather than being purely confrontational. He was a gentleman, in other words.

Somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the idea that discourse in relation to such ideas can occur in a civil fashion, and without having to rely on heavy cynicism and ad hominem attacks to get our points across. Therefore, here I hope the discussion presented has been, perhaps in the most literal sense, “civil discourse”, but also that the point has been made effectively too: any remaining advocacy of a “flat earth theory”, however absurd it may be, will hopefully be viewed with a bit more scrutiny by any proponents reading about it here. I think it is fair to call the idea absurd, as most would agree: but by the same token, having such an absurd debate is important, in my opinion, because it outlines how easily people can fall into fallacious thinking, despite the vast amounts of knowledge at our disposal in the present day.

I maintain that it’s alright to “ask questions”, and yes, I also think that doing so is at the very heart of good skepticism. But what also must be considered is whether the questions we’re asking send us along the best lines of thought that we could be following, and whether their outcome will present us with logical conclusions, or merely opinions based on circumstance, in the absence of any real facts.

This fundamental differentiation is the key, I think, and mastering this skill may be the best way to know what it truly means to be asking the right questions.


Why the Earth May Really Be Flat

The hypothesis H is considered that the earth is flat. A relatively simple observation (or experimental outcome) that might plausibly be used to refute H is suggested. The purported refutation is analyzed, identifying the auxiliary assumptions involved, so as to show how H may be saved from actually being refuted. Then it is shown how H can be used, together with some revised auxiliary assumptions that seem reasonable or plausible, to account for the very observation (or outcome) that was originally supposed to refute H.

 According to a philosophy often attributed to Sir Karl Popper (1959), naive or dogmatic falsificationism, science is defined as a modus tollens argument of the following form. First, from a hypothesis we draw some observational consequence: H implies C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that H is false. Diagrammatically, we have the following logical argument:



 If this were all there is to science, then there could be no objection to the conclusion that H is false, because it is a consequence of a logically valid argument: given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion follows. However, if we look at the actual practice of scientists, we will find that this is not a true picture of the way science is actually conducted. Scientists routinely argue over conclusions from observation and experiment. What could they possibly have to argue about if science progresses as a series of deductive arguments of the form proposed above? Well, it turns out that there is more to the logical structure of science than the naive scheme for falsification would hold. The key to understanding this "something more" is understanding the role of auxiliary assumptions. Auxiliary assumptions are subject-specific assumptions concerning the initial conditions or experimental assumptions, and/or the assumptions of the theory.

 According to the more sophisticated scheme for falsification (Popper's methodological falsificationism), we start out with a hypothesis plus some auxiliary assumptions, which combined imply some observational consequence: H plus auxiliary assumptions imply C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that either H is false or some of the auxiliary assumptions are false (or both). There is room for argument as to what exactly is to blame for the anomalous observational outcome, C*. Diagrammatically, we have the following:

 IF (H & A1 & A2 & A3 . . . ), THEN NOT C*.

 A particularly effective rhetorical strategy is to take a potential falsifier, such as the anomalous observation C*, and, by modifying the auxiliary assumptions, turn it into a corroborating instance of the hypothesis, H. This is exactly the strategy that I will attempt to illustrate in the remainder of this paper.

 Consider the hypothesis, H, that the earth is flat. Now suppose we wished to derive some testable observational consequences from this hypothesis. If the earth is flat, then we should not observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. However, we do observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Therefore, according to the naive scheme for falsification, we have a completely knock-down argument that the earth is not flat.

 However, what auxiliary assumptions intervene between hypothesis and conclusion? Auxiliary assumptions can be divided into two types: experimental assumptions concerning the initial conditions, and theoretical assumptions.

 As for the initial conditions of this experiment, we note the following. First, we assume that the sun gives the moon its light. Second, we assume that the earth and not another celestial body intervenes between the sun and the moon to cause the lunar eclipse. Third, we assume that the behavior of light is the same in outer space as it is on earth. Fourth, we assume that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Fifth, we assume that the shadow cast by the sun is not obscured by light from other heavenly bodies, such as the stars. On the theoretical side, we assume a theory of optics that would allow us to tell the difference between a curved and flat shadow.

 Let us take the fourth experimental assmption, that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Is this really credible? If this assumption were not true, then that could shift the evidence in favor of a flat earth. Let's see how.

 A quarter is a flat object. However, if you spin a quarter on its axis, the shadow made by a light overhead is in the shape of a circle.

 Suppose that the earth is flat, as per our initial hypothesis. Now suppose that the earth is in constant motion. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the earth is spinning at the tremendous rate of approximately 1000 miles per hour. Given these assmptions, what shape shadow should the earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse? Clearly, the earth should cast a circular shadow!

 I have demonstrated that the earth may in fact be flat. I have done so by turning a previous argument against the flatness of the earth on its head, showing the importance of the role played by auxiliary assumptions. Let us continue this exercise to account for one further observation.

 Given that the earth is spinning at a tremendous rate, why do we not fly off the earth? The answer is that gravity pulls us down, keeping us in close proximity to the earth. In fact, gravity seems to be equally in operation at every point along the surface of the earth, just as we would expect if the earth were a sphere.

 How can we account for the equal effects of gravity if the earth is a flat disc? Gravity is a force field. Nobody really knows what gravity looks like--we only know what gravity is like through its effects: it pulls us downward. Therefore, suppose that gravity is curved. It proceeds from the center of mass of the disc-shaped earth out to the further reaches of the earth, while all the time it is curved in such a way as to pull objects on the earth downward. That would account for the observed effects of gravity.

 Now I have shown how a little tinkering with auxiliary assumptions can change the evidence against a hypothesis to favor it. Given that the earth is spinning rapidly so as to cause a circular shadow during a lunar eclipse, and that gravity is curved so as to affect the whole surface of the earth equally, we can conclude that the earth may in fact be flat. On the other hand, the auxiliary assumptions themselves need to be subjected to empirical test, and their auxiliary assumptions need to be subjected to empirical test, and so on. Given different auxiliary assumptions, we might arrive at a different conclusion. As Einstein and Infeld (1938, pp. 30-31) say, "It is really our whole system of guesses which is to be either proved or disproved by experiment. No one of the assumptions can be isolated for separate testing.... [W]e can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well."