The Concave Earth Discussion.

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
1,111
Reactions
2,861
There y'all go. A thread to discuss the concave earth shape without derailing other topics. I have no skin in the game, hence the brevity.
 

ripvanwillie

Well-known member
Messages
66
Reactions
285
ripvanwillie - I have questions about the concave model, but this isn't the place and I'm trying not to draw ire by derailing the thread, but could you maybe point us to where we can get more information? I haven't been able to find reliable, serious sources.
That is because there aren't any reliable sources, at least any that I can find.
I've been researching it for over 20 years, and there used to be quite a bit on the internet. But now most of it has been googled. You can find all the flat earth info your brain can handle, but concave earth? Almost nothing.
If you do a basic internet search you'll quickly find that we are given only two choices, the convex, spinning earth or a flat stationary earth. If you do find anything on a hollow earth it probably won't be the concave earth model, but a fanciful hollow planet with subterranean worlds not yet explored but still based on the convex earth model. Many novels have been written on this subject.
This is the classic fallacy of a false dichotomy. It seems the powers that be don't want us to know about the concave earth so they only show us two possibilities., both which are seriously flawed.

The first and only book ever written in English, as far as I can find, is The Cellular Cosmogony or the Earth a Concave Sphere, by Cyrus Teed (aka Koresh) and Ulysses Grant Morrow. The original came out in 1898, later versions have been edited. Teed gets all the credit for the idea, but his follower U.G. Morrow was in charge of the experiments.
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

More info here:
The hollow earth project

If you can read German there were some books written in the 20th century, but none have been translated to English so far as I can find.
Johannes Lang - Karl Neupert - Unser Wissen vom Sein : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is an old German webpage with some info:
Hollow earth theory, free energy, cosmos, satellite, moon, planets, astronomy, cellular cosmogony, astrophysics

The best experiments I've found have been the Tamrack mine shafts which proved by gravity and mathematics that we are on the inside, U.G. Morrow's rectilineator which used right angles, the FM radio tests of the 1930's which showed the earth can't be convex, and some visual tests done on canals and in large bodies of water which show an upward curve to water. And then there was Mostafa Abdelkader who proved in the early 1980's mathematically that the solar system works inside a hollow sphere, but his work is well hidden.
And let's not forget all those old maps showing concave projections...
1598.jpg
 

Banta

Well-known member
Messages
127
Reactions
375
The best experiments I've found have been the Tamrack mine shafts which proved by gravity and mathematics that we are on the inside, U.G. Morrow's rectilineator which used right angles, the FM radio tests of the 1930's which showed the earth can't be convex, and some visual tests done on canals and in large bodies of water which show an upward curve to water. And then there was Mostafa Abdelkader who proved in the early 1980's mathematically that the solar system works inside a hollow sphere, but his work is well hidden.
This is easily my largest issue here... observations with modern equipment seem to indicate that either the Earth is curving away from us or optically appearing to do so, but I've never personally seen any photographic evidence that the Earth is rising up.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can determine the shape of our realm, as I don't think anyone has ever been high enough to do so and anything else is a projection of available data to fit whatever narrative you subscribe to. Mankind may not have been meant to perceive physical reality in its entirety or it may be structurally impossible to actually do so.
 

zxcv0

Active member
Messages
56
Reactions
165
I've been researching it for over 20 years, and there used to be quite a bit on the internet. But now most of it has been googled. You can find all the flat earth info your brain can handle, but concave earth? Almost nothing.
If you do a basic internet search you'll quickly find that we are given only two choices, the convex, spinning earth or a flat stationary earth. If you do find anything on a hollow earth it probably won't be the concave earth model, but a fanciful hollow planet with subterranean worlds not yet explored but still based on the convex earth model. Many novels have been written on this subject.
This is the classic fallacy of a false dichotomy. It seems the powers that be don't want us to know about the concave earth so they only show us two possibilities., both which are seriously flawed.
That's exactly it. It's as plain as day once you see how it's been presented.
This is easily my largest issue here... observations with modern equipment seem to indicate that either the Earth is curving away from us or optically appearing to do so, but I've never personally seen any photographic evidence that the Earth is rising up.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can determine the shape of our realm, as I don't think anyone has ever been high enough to do so and anything else is a projection of available data to fit whatever narrative you subscribe to. Mankind may not have been meant to perceive physical reality in its entirety or it may be structurally impossible to actually do so.
We've had amateur photographers send balloons 120,000 feet in the air. Every time they do, the horizon remains at eye level. In no model other than concave would this happen.

If the earth was convex round, or flat, the horizon would begin to sink lower than eye level. Even at 120,000 feet. Only on concave would it remain at eye level, which is exactly what we witness through cameras at 120,000 feet.

This 3-minute video shows examples of water that shouldn't be seen on a convex/flat earth:

 
Last edited:

Banta

Well-known member
Messages
127
Reactions
375
If the earth was convex round, or flat, the horizon would begin to sink lower than eye level. Even at 120,000 feet. Only on concave would it remain at eye level, which is exactly what we witness through cameras at 120,000 feet.
I'm not sure I agree that would be the case on a flat Earth nor do I accept that the horizon doesn't actually appear to get lower. I have seen videos that appears to show it lower and others that do not.

And furthermore, wouldn't it imply that the concavity is occuring at the same rate as the limits of our vision (cameras in this case), meaning that the Earth realm is so properly proportioned as to create the illusion of flatness? Sounds a bit like a globe earth argument, frankly.

Lack of evidence available on the internet doesn't necessarily mean suppression. I am actually routinely surprised by what information is available and this site is a testament to that. It would seem to me the goal is to create narratives so you don't have to hide as much information, which there are always logistical issues involved with that.

It is just interesting to me that the globe earth and concave earth (and ice wall flat Earth) eliminate the possibility of additional land masses, unless you make them so large that you can't practically discern anything from even the longest distance observations. And of course, you really can't do that (make a bigger sphere) with the globe model at all without literally changing the whole universe.
 

zxcv0

Active member
Messages
56
Reactions
165
I'm not sure I agree that would be the case on a flat Earth nor do I accept that the horizon doesn't actually appear to get lower. I have seen videos that appears to show it lower and others that do not.
I would love to see an example of a horizon appearing lower than eye/camera level in support of the flat earth, so please I encourage you to post those videos. Having been a flat earth proponent for two years, I've yet to come across any evidence of this, but am open to new evidence.
 

Banta

Well-known member
Messages
127
Reactions
375
I would love to see an example of a horizon appearing lower than eye/camera level in support of the flat earth
I will try and locate it, I recall a couple months ago a video that contended that on a flat Earth that you would see a lowered horizon (much like the concave claim) and there was supporting video evidence. It wasn't a channel I ordinarily watch, and with YouTube making (some) flat Earth videos hard to find, it may take a little bit

There are so many different atmospheric conditions that are highly variable that the position of the horizon (which is only where the ground and sky apparently meet) can change by the moment. The only thing that's clear to me in the debate on the shape of the Earth is that nothing is really clear at all. Even describing it as having a shape at all may be dubious.
 

toybrandon

New member
Messages
12
Reactions
15
That's exactly it. It's as plain as day once you see how it's been presented.


We've had amateur photographers send balloons 120,000 feet in the air. Every time they do, the horizon remains at eye level. In no model other than concave would this happen.

If the earth was convex round, or flat, the horizon would begin to sink lower than eye level. Even at 120,000 feet. Only on concave would it remain at eye level, which is exactly what we witness through cameras at 120,000 feet.

This 3-minute video shows examples of water that shouldn't be seen on a convex/flat earth:


Having been neck deep in flat earth investigation for the last couple of years, I do not believe it is possible to prove the shape of the earth optically - certainly not with any camera. Don't get me wrong, I have seen many, many videos and photos that point to a flat earth. I have also seen photos and videos that look like there is curvature drop. In either case, the other side has plausible arguments and no definitive conclusion can be drawn. For example, the globe works beautifully on the model. But, when you compare real world observations of objects at distances that should be hidden by curvature according to their own calculations, globe believers will blame refraction. While this argument is almost ludicrous in some cases, I know of no way to disprove that what we are seeing is not due to refraction.

That said, I have never heard the argument regarding the horizon dropping away on a flat earth. Why would the horizon sink below eye level on a flat earth?
 

zxcv0

Active member
Messages
56
Reactions
165
That said, I have never heard the argument regarding the horizon dropping away on a flat earth. Why would the horizon sink below eye level on a flat earth?
You're right, since some flat earth proponents argue for an ice wall that could extend into infinity, the horizon wouldn't sink. I guess I was talking about a model with defined boundaries; that would sink as you rose because there would be a finite amount of land to converge at the vanishing point. This is a major problem of the convex model.
 

Banta

Well-known member
Messages
127
Reactions
375
You're right, since some flat earth proponents argue for an ice wall that could extend into infinity, the horizon wouldn't sink. I guess I was talking about a model with defined boundaries; that would sink as you rose because there would be a finite amount of land to converge at the vanishing point.
I don't think anyone or anything can see far enough for a finite amount of land to come into play. With aids, the furthest someone can see is a few hundred miles in any direction.

I still can't find the video arguing that the horizon does and would go down on a flat Earth, but again, I'm not sure I agree with the premise anyway. My larger point was it is very difficult to even discern whether the horizon changes with altitude anyway... There are enough flat Earth debunk videos out there which claim to show it lowering, but then there are reasonable arguments on why the effect is localized or, in the case of the video I can't find, there is a reason related to the optical limit and atmospheric effects that would cause the horizon to appear lower.
 

Schism

Active member
Messages
92
Reactions
183
I think you are asking why we don't look up and see the other side of the earth; China, for example. The simple answer is we can only see things which are illuminated and relatively close. We just don't have the ability to see that far. We can only see detail for a short distance then we only see points of light. Regardless of whether one believes the distances claimed, we can't see beyond the stars. The only objects in space we can view clearly is the sun and moon. Everything beyond is created by artists. The best optical telescopes can't even give us a good, clear picture of mars.
And when looking along the horizon, particles in the air limit our vision even more significantly. But there have been experiments showing visual evidence of an upward curve.
There is evidence; visual, audible, and mathematical, that supports the concave earth model.
I don't think the concave earth theory is a part of our stolen history, but it might be. There are certainly a large number of world maps from the 16th century on with concave projection lines.
@ripvanwillie, my response is to your reply from this thread here -

Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?

Many are aware already, but for those who aren't, this thread spun out of the tail end of the thread above.

Regarding why one cannot look accross the horizon with decent magnification and/or a decent telescope and not see for example - China, or anywhere else that is thousands of miles away - idk about that. Seems more speculative than anything else to me. Where's the proof for your thoughts?

I'm a lot like you in the sense that I believe there are known truths and untruths, and a lot of grey in-between. I also agree with you that people lie. Intentionally or not, a lie is a lie = not the truth.

If the earth is truly concave, one would think there would be a permenantly bright area above the horizon that would vary depending on ones location. I've never found that to be the case in my observations.

Also, under magnification, I've never noticed any city's, lights, etc, (zoomable and/or with magnification) that aren't so far away on the horizon either. In all my days using telescopes, magnification, etc, I've never seen anything of the sorts on the horizon from ground level. Sitting on a mountain top, or on a tall ship, tall building, etc - of course you can.


That's fantastic that you are out there doing your own observations! I would be interested in seeing your results.

However, the distortion of distant objects through the atmosphere is a well established fact. I don't think that is even in question. Even at distances or heights that would be visible on any model, atmospheric conditions will occlude objects on the horizon. This Skunk Bay time-lapse demonstrates some of the effects that have been observed (I skipped the intro to avoid the music):



The original question was regarding seeing objects through a telescope from across the "bowl". I interpreted that to mean long distances, such as across the ocean or across a continent. In that case, do you think we should be able to see objects at that distance, that close to the ground, if the earth were flat or concave? I can see that on a concave earth, because - like the stars - you would be looking at a non-zero declination, so you wouldn't be going through as long a distance of lower atmosphere, which is indeed much denser. However, you said you have observed stars at the horizon. Do you have any examples of this you could share?

There is also the matter of the actual distances to the stars. In my opinion, that question is unanswered.

@toybrandon, I do not dispute that there is a lot of atmospheric distortion along the horizon. I feel I made that clear in my original post, and I assume you understood me correctly. Atmospheric distortion will vary day to day, night to night, season to season, etc. It's certainly not a given as there are many variables to it. The video you posted from skunk bay is just that. It's a video from one day, one moment, one place, etc. The same conditions will not be identical day after day, etc.

I watched, observed, etc, exactly what I'm talking about for over ~30 days while I was taking observations back in August, and September. It's quite amazing what the atmosphere is capable of doing. Temperature, humidity, etc, all come into play. I know what I observed, and I am specifically talking about on the horizon during the daylight, especially over water. Apparitions, distortions, disappearing acts, etc, I seen a lot of strange stuff. I was there long enough to see a variety of conditions, and it helped me to understand some things better.

I did not take photographs, or video that I would feel comfortable posting here, or on YouTube, etc. In all honesty, one needs more, and/or better equipment than I had to be doing stuff like that. Hopefully I make it back there one day, and have some better equipment such as having the ability to record video in the day or night that is equal in quality. I had two pairs of binoculars, one pair were star gazers, and one very high quality gen3 night vision unit. I wish I had brought a 5" or better, long tube refractor telescope. I needed it to proceed further with my observations and/or investigation.

The night I read your above quote about stars on the horizon, I walked outside, and looked east, and was easily able to observe the main stars in the Orion constellation rising directly on the horizon in the east. I was in Montana while conducting the majority of my observations if that is relevant somehow.

While I was at the reservoir making observations for ~30 days/nights, I remember a night when my sister asked - where are the Pleiades? She said, I seen them last night, where are they now? Why can't I see them? I got my gen3 night vision out, and there they were, right on the horizon, and unobservable with the naked eye due to atmospheric haze and/or distortion. They were very low on the east horizon.

I will stop here for now.

I've seen some folks on this site, and elsewhere talking about individual perspective, individual perception, etc. I don't wish to go there with anyone. A black bird is a black bird. A dove is a dove. A cardinal is a cardinal, and so on. Black, white, and red. Unless one is borderline blind, or even color blind - I digress. In all honesty, if we are going to veer off into individual perception, what individual's perceive with their own two eyes as fact. If everyone is seeing different things that are clearly black, white, and red - it seems pretty pointless to debate our findings in pursuit of the truth when everyone's truth is their own truth.

Edited...
 
Last edited:
Top