• Embarking on a digital quest through the vast citadels of Google and beyond, an ancient relic was unearthed: the revered "export" scroll dated September 5, 2014. Rejoice, for the chronicles thought lost have been found. Welcome back to the complete tapestry of TTI.

    Read More

Flat Earth proofs


Staff member
Flat Earth is a subject I love pondering. This thread will be used for posting Flat Earth anecdotes I come across, and also for you to post your own proofs. Debunking is fine too; I’m not for or against the theory I just think it’s fun and interesting.

On a globe earth, Refraction can cause the optical horizon to move closer to the observer but it cannot extend the optical horizon beyond the limit of the geometric horizon necessitated by a ball earth with a radius of 3959 miles.

Refraction has never been shown to make an object hidden behind physical obstruction to arch up and over the obstruction bringing it back into line of sight of the observer due solely to atmospheric refraction. That is impossible and the fact that this is the best explanation for ALL of the impossible long distance line of sight observations just shows the sheer amount of cope required to defend a clearly broken and thoroughly falsified model.

Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments proved definitively that earth is motionless. Even Einstein himself, and every single one of the most credentialed Heliocentric physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers have repeatedly stated that neither orbital velocity, nor earth’s rotation have ever been proven. Einstein even went as far as to specifically state that Foucault Pendulums DID NOT PROVE ROTATION and that according to General Relativity NEITHER EARTH’S SUPPOSED ROTATION NOR ORBIT CAN BE PROVEN.

We can prove that the horizon is an optical location which fluctuates based on atmospheric conditions. We can also prove empirically that objects can be made to appear to go over a false horizon due solely to the effects of perspective and atmospheric refraction.

Globe proponents cannot prove empirically the location of their GEOMETRIC HORIZON even though they claim it is a PHYSICAL LOCATION.




Also, according to the inverse square law of light, the ISS should decrease in brightness exponentially as it moves away. it should be 5.5 times less bright at 600 miles viewing distance than it is at 255 miles viewing distance. and it should be 23 times less bright when its 1200 miles away from you. This is objectively not what we observe when watching the light referred to as the ISS pass overhead. video taken of the iss and time lapsed photos show a rather consistent brightness which would be impossible if it were really reflecting the sun’s light.

videos of the ISS from earth show the same thing as the timelapse photos:

Last edited:
I remember such a picture from highschool, as a kid:


It’s a classic, that shows how buildings seem to rise to the horizon as you get closer to the shore. To me, it’s one of the best examples you can see for yourself, without going to space.

I haven’t looked into Flat Earth in more than a decade, but I remember looking at arguments and theories back in the day. I thought it was interesting to analyze the thought process behind it. It’s so counter-intuitive to me, so I was curious to see if they had good arguments.

I remember that one of the points they had, was asking why no planes go over the poles. Oh well… It’s simply because of weather, visibility, and lack of ground infrastructure. It’s not because they don’t want us to see the ice wall surrounding the world.
Satellites and GPS is something that puts a pretty big nail in the flat earth coffin. If anyone has a good explanation for that, I’d be curious to hear it.

There’s a lot of other interesting evidence for a flat earth though, like the image Num posted above.It’s too bad the “globe earthers” tend to reply with derision and disrespect instead of seeing a curious mind who doesn’t blindly accept what someone else says is true.

I don’t really care what the earth is shaped like, I just really love this theory and that there’s arguments for it to begin with.