One Hundred Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe William Carpenter 1379 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of One Hundred Proofs That
the Earth Is Not a Globe

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: One Hundred Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe

Author: William Carpenter

Release date: August 19, 2017 [eBook #55387]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55387

Credits: Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ONE HUNDRED
PROOFS THAT THE EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE ***

A Challenge to the JOHNS

HOPKINS University

ONE HUNDRED
PROOFS THAT THE

EARTH IS NOT A
GLOBE.

Dedicated to RICHARD A. PROCTOR,
Esq.
“The Greatest Astronomer of the Age.”
By WM. CARPENTER,
Referee for John Hampden, Esq., in the
Celebrated Scientific Wager, in 1870;
Author of ‘Common Sense’ on Astronomy,
(London, 1866;) Proctor’s Planet Earth;
Wallace’s Wonderful Water; The Delusion
of the Day, &c., &c.

“UPRIGHT, DOWNRIGHT,
STRAIGHTFORWARD.”
BALTIMORE:
Printed and Published by the Author,
No. 71 Chew Street

1885.
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS. Five Copies,
Postage Paid, for One Dollar.
5th Edition: 6th Thousand.

INDEX.
1 The aeronaut sees for himself.
2 Standing water level.
3 Surveyors’ “allowance.”
4 Flow of Rivers—the Nile.
5 Lighthouses—Cape Hatteras.
6 The sea-shore.—“Coming up.”
7 A trip down Chesapeake Bay.
8 The model globe useless.
9 The sailor’s level charts.
10 The mariners’ compass.
11 The southern circumference.
12 Circumnavigation of the Earth.
13 Meridians are straight lines.
14 Parallels of latitude—circles.
15 Sailing down and underneath.
16 Distance round the South.
17 Levelness required by man.
18 The “level” of the astronomers.
19 Half the globe is cut off, now!
20 No “up” or “down” in nature?
21 The “spherical lodestone.”
22 No falsehoods wanted!
23 No proof of “rotundity.”
24 A “most complete” failure.
25 The first Atlantic Cable.
26 Earth’s “curvature.”
27 Which end goes down?
28 A “hill of water.”

29 Characteristics of a globe.
30 Horizon—level with the eye.
31 Much too small a globe.
32 Vanishing point of objects.
33 We are not “fastened on.”
34 Our “antipodes.”—a delusion.
35 Horizon a level line.
36 Chesapeake Bay by night.
37 Six months day and night.
38 The “Midnight Sun.”
39 Sun moves round the Earth.
40 Suez Canal—100 miles—level.
41 The “true level.”—a curve.
42 Projectiles—firing east or west.
43 Bodies thrown upwards.
44 Firing in opposite direction.
45 Astronomer Royal of England.
46 An utterly meaningless theory.
47 Professor Proctor’s cylinder.
48 Proctor’s false perspective.
49 Motion of the clouds.
50 Scriptural proof—a plane.
51 The “Standing Order.”
52 More ice in the south.
53 Sun’s accelerated pace, south.
54 Balloons not left behind.
55 The Moon’s beams are cold.
56 The Sun and Moon.
57 Not Earth’s shadow at all.
58 Rotating and revolving.
59 Proctor’s big mistake.
60 Sun’s distance from Earth.
61 No true “measuring-rod.”

62 Sailing “round” a thing.
63 Telescopes—“hill of water.”
64 The laws of optics—Glaisher.
65 “Dwelling” upon error.
66 Ptolemy’s predictions.
67 Canal in China—700 miles.
68 Mr. Lockyer’s false logic.
69 Beggarly alternatives.
70 Mr. Lockyer’s suppositions.
71 North Star seen from S. lat.
72 “Walls not parallel!”
73 Pendulum experiments.
74 “Delightful uncertainty.”
75 Outrageous calculations.
76 J. R. Young’s Navigation.
77 “Tumbling over.”
78 Circumnavigation—south.
79 A disc—not a sphere.
80 Earth’s “motion” unproven.
81 Moon’s motion east to west.
82 All on the wrong track.
83 No meridianal “degrees.”
84 Depression of North Star.
85 Rivers flowing up-hill?
86 100 miles in five seconds.
87 Miserable makeshifts.
88 What holds the people on.
89 Luminous objects.
90 Practice against theory.
91 Unscientific classification.
92 G. B. Airy’s “suppositions.”
93 Astronomers give up theory.
94 School-room “proofs” false.

95 Pictorial proof—Earth a plane.
96 Laws of perspective ignored.
97 “Rational suppositions.”
98 It is the star that moves.
99 Hair-splitting calculation.
100 How “time” is lost or gained.

ONE HUNDRED PROOFS
THAT THE EARTH IS NOT
A GLOBE.

Dedicated to R. A. PROCTOR, Esq.
BY WM. CARPENTER.

“UPRIGHT, DOWNRIGHT,
STRAIGHTFORWARD.”

[Copyright Secured.]
BALTIMORE:
Printed and Published by the Author,
No. 71 Chew Street.
1885

INTRODUCTION.
“Parallax,” the Founder of the Zetetic Philosophy, is dead; and it now
becomes the duty of those, especially, who knew him personally and who
labored with him in the cause of Truth against Error, to begin, anew, the
work which is left in their hands. Dr. Samuel B. Rowbotham finished his
earthly labours, in England, the country of his birth, December 23, 1884, at
the age of 89. He was, certainly, one of the most gifted of men: and though
his labours as a public lecturer were confined within the limits of the British
Islands his published work is known all over the world and is destined to
live and be republished when books on the now popular system of
philosophy will be considered in no other light than as bundles of waste
paper. For several years did “Parallax” spread a knowledge of the facts
which form the basis of his system without the slightest recognition from
the newspaper press until, in January, 1849, the people were informed by
the “Wilts Independent” that lectures had been delivered by “a gentleman
adopting the name of ‘Parallax,’ to prove modern astronomy unreasonable
and contradictory,” that “great skill” was shown by the lecturer, and that he
proved himself to be “thoroughly acquainted with the subject in all its
bearings.” Such was the beginning—the end will not be so easily described.
The Truth will always find advocates—men who care not a snap of their
fingers for the mere opinion of the world, whatever form it may take, whilst
they know that they are the masters of the situation and that Reason is
King! In 1867, “Parallax” was described as “a paragon of courtesy, good
temper, and masterly skill in debate.” The author of the following hastily-
gotten-up pages is proud of having spent many a pleasant hour in the
company of Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

A complete sketch of the “Zetetic Philosophy” is impossible in a small
pamphlet; and many things necessarily remain unsaid which, perhaps,
should have been touched upon, but which would to some extent have
interfered with the plan laid down—the bringing together, in a concise
form, “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe.” Much may be

gathered, indirectly, from the arguments in these pages, as to the real nature
of the Earth on which we live and of the heavenly bodies which were
created FOR US. The reader is requested to be patient in this matter and not
expect a whole flood of light to burst in upon him at once, through the
dense clouds of opposition and prejudice which hang all around. Old ideas
have to be gotten rid of, by some people, before they can entertain the new;
and this will especially be the case in the matter of the Sun, about which we
are taught, by Mr. Proctor, as follows: “The globe of the Sun is so much
larger than that of the Earth that no less than 1,250,000 globes as large as
the Earth would be wanted to make up together a globe as large as the Sun.”
Whereas, we know that, as it is demonstrated that the Sun moves round
over the Earth, its size is proportionately less. We can then easily
understand that Day and Night, and the Seasons are brought about by his
daily circuits round in a course concentric with the North, diminishing in
their extent to the end of June, and increasing until the end of December,
the equatorial region being the area covered by the Sun’s mean motion. If,
then, these pages serve but to arouse the spirit of enquiry, the author will be
satisfied. The right hand of fellowship in this good work is extended, in
turn, to Mr. J. Lindgren, 90 South First Street, Brooklyn, E. D., N. Y., Mr.
M. C. Flanders, lecturer, Kendall, Orleans County, N. Y., and to Mr. John
Hampden, editor of “Parallax” (a new journal), Cosmos House, Balham,
Surrey, England.

ONE HUNDRED PROOFS
THAT
EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.
If man uses the senses which God has given him, he gains knowledge; if he
uses them not, he remains ignorant. Mr. R. A. Proctor, who has been called
“the greatest astronomer of the age,” says: “The Earth on which we live and
move seems to be flat.” Now, he does not mean that it seems to be flat to
the man who shuts his eyes in the face of nature, or, who is not in the full
possession of his senses: no, but to the average, common sense, wide-
awake, thinking man. He continues: “that is, though there are hills and
valleys on its surface, yet it seems to extend on all sides in one and the same
general level.” Again, he says: “There seems nothing to prevent us from
travelling as far as we please in any direction towards the circle all round
us, called the horizon, where the sky seems to meet the level of the Earth.”
“The level of the Earth!” Mr. Proctor knows right well what he is talking
about, for the book from which we take his words, “Lessons in Elementary
Astronomy,” was written, he tells us, “to guard the beginner against the
captious objections which have from time to time been urged against
accepted astronomical theories.” The things which are to be defended, then,
are these “accepted astronomical theories!” It is not truth that is to be
defended against the assaults of error—Oh, no: simply “theories,” right or
wrong, because they have been “accepted!” Accepted! Why, they have been
accepted because it was not thought to be worth while to look at them. Sir
John Herschel says: “We shall take for granted, from the outset, the
Copernican system of the world.” He did not care whether it was the right
system or a wrong one, or he would not have done that: he would have
looked into it. But, forsooth, the theories are accepted, and, of course, the
men who have accepted them are the men who will naturally defend them if
they can. So, Richard A. Proctor tries his hand; and we shall see how it fails
him. His book was published without any date to it at all. But there is

internal evidence which will fix that matter closely enough. We read of the
carrying out of the experiments of the celebrated scientist, Alfred R.
Wallace, to prove the “convexity” of the surface of standing water, which
experiments were conducted in March, 1870, for the purpose of winning
Five Hundred Pounds from John Hampden, Esq., of Swindon, England,
who had wagered that sum upon the conviction that the said surface is
always a level one. Mr. Proctor says: “The experiment was lately tried in a
very amusing way.” In or about the year 1870, then, Mr. Proctor wrote his
book; and, instead of being ignorant of the details of the experiment, he
knew all about them. And whether the “amusing” part of the business was
the fact that Mr. Wallace wrongfully claimed the five-hundred pounds and
got it, or that Mr. Hampden was the victim of the false claim, it is hard to
say. The “way” in which the experiment was carried out is, to all intents and
purposes, just the way in which Mr. Proctor states that it “can be tried.” He
says, however, that the distance involved in the experiment “should be three
or four miles.” Now, Mr. Wallace took up six miles in his experiment, and
was unable to prove that there is any “curvature,” though he claimed the
money and got it; surely it would be “amusing” for anyone to expect to be
able to show the “curvature of the earth” in three or four miles, as Mr.
Proctor suggests! Nay, it is ridiculous. But “the greatest astronomer of the
age” says the thing can be done! And he gives a diagram: “Showing how
the roundness of the Earth can be proved by means of three boats on a large
sheet of water.” (Three or four miles.) But, though the accepted
astronomical theories be scattered to the winds, we charge Mr. Proctor
either that he has never made the experiment with the three boats, or, that, if
he has, the experiment did NOT prove what he says it will. Accepted
theories, indeed! Are they to be bolstered up with absurdity and falsehood?
Why, if it were possible to show the two ends of a four-mile stretch of water
to be on a level, with the centre portion of that water bulged up, the surface
of the Earth would be a series of four-mile curves!

But Mr. Proctor says: “We can set three boats in a line on the water, as at A,
B, and C, (Fig. 7). Then, if equal masts are placed in these boats, and we
place a telescope, as shown, so that when we look through it we see the tops
of the masts of A and C, we find the top of the mast B is above the line of
sight.” Now, here is the point: Mr. Proctor either knows or he ought to know

that we shall NOT find anything of the sort! If he has ever tried the
experiment, he knows that the three masts will range in a straight line, just
as common sense tells us they will. If he has not tried the experiment, he
should have tried it, or have paid attention to the details of experiments by
those who have tried similar ones a score of times and again. Mr. Proctor
may take either horn of the dilemma he pleases: he is just as wrong as a
man can be, either way. He mentions no names, but he says: “A person had
written a book, in which he said that he had tried such an experiment as the
above, and had found that the surface of the water was not curved.” That
person was “Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Philosophy. He
continues: “Another person seems to have believed the first, and became so
certain that the Earth is flat as to wager a large sum of money that if three
boats were placed as in Fig. 7, the middle one would not be above the line
joining the two others.” That person was John Hampden. And, says Mr.
Proctor, “Unfortunately for him, some one who had more sense agreed to
take his wager, and, of course, won his money.” Now, the “some one who
had more sense” was Mr. Wallace. And, says Proctor, in continuation: “He
[Hampden?] was rather angry; and it is a strange thing that he was not
angry with himself for being so foolish, or with the person who said he had
tried the experiment (and so led him astray), but with the person who had
won his money!” Here, then, we see that Mr. Proctor knows better than to
say that the experiments conducted by “Parallax” were things of the
imagination only, or that a wrong account had been given of them; and it
would be well if he knew better than to try to make his readers believe that
either one or the other of these things is the fact: But, there is the Old
Bedford Canal now; and there are ten thousand places where the experiment
may be tried! Who, then, are the “foolish” people: those who “believe” the
record of experiments made by searchers after Truth, or those who shut
their eyes to them, throw a doubt upon the record, charge the conductors of
the experiments with dishonesty, never conduct similar experiments
themselves, and declare the result of such experiments to be so and so,
when the declaration can be proved to be false by any man, with a
telescope, in twenty-four hours?

Mr. Proctor:—The sphericity of the Earth CANNOT be proved in the way
in which you tell us it “can” be! We tell you to take back your words and

remodel them on the basis of Truth. Such careless misrepresentations of
facts are a disgrace to science—they are the disgrace of theoretical science
to-day! Mr. Blackie, in his work on “Self Culture,” says: “All flimsy,
shallow, and superficial work, in fact, is a lie, of which a man ought to be
ashamed.”

That the Earth is an extended plane, stretched out in all directions away
from the central North, over which hangs, for ever, the North Star, is a fact
which all the falsehoods that can be brought to bear upon it with their dead
weight will never overthrow: it is God’s Truth the face of which, however,
man has the power to smirch all over with his unclean hands. Mr. Proctor
says: “We learn from astronomy that all these ideas, natural though they
seem, are mistaken.” Man’s natural ideas and conclusions and experimental
results are, then, to be overthrown by—what! By “astronomy?” By a thing
without a soul—a mere theoretical abstraction, the outcome of the dreamer?
Never! The greatest astronomer of the age is not the man, even, who can so
much as attempt to manage the business. “We find,” says Mr. Proctor, “that
the Earth is not flat, but a globe; not fixed, but in very rapid motion; not
much larger than the moon, and far smaller than the Sun and the greater
number of the stars.”

First, then, Mr. Proctor, tell us HOW you find that the Earth is not flat, but a
globe! It does not matter that “we find” it so put down in that
conglomeration of suppositions which you seek to defend: the question is,
What is the evidence of it?—where can it be obtained? “The Earth on which
we live and move seems to be flat,” you tell us: where, then, is the mistake?
If the Earth seem to be what it is not, how are we to trust our senses? And if
it is said that we cannot do so, are we to believe it, and consent to be put
down lower than the brutes? No, sir: we challenge you, as we have done
many times before, to produce the slightest evidence of the Earth’s
rotundity, from the world of facts around you. You have given to us the
statement we have quoted, and we have the right to demand a proof; and if
this is not forthcoming, we have before us the duty of denouncing the
absurd dogma as worse than an absurdity—as a FRAUD—and as a fraud
that flies in the face of divine revelation! Well, then, Mr. Proctor, in
demanding a proof of the Earth’s rotundity (or the frank admission of your

errors), we are tempted to taunt you as we tell you that it is utterly out of
your power to produce one; and we tell you that you do not dare even to lift
up your finger to point us to the so-called proofs in the school-books of the
day, for you know the measure of absurdity of which they are composed,
and how disgraceful it is to allow them to remain as false guides of the
youthful mind!

Mr. Proctor: we charge you that, whilst you teach the theory of the Earth’s
rotundity and mobility, you KNOW that it is a plane; and here is the ground
of the charge. In page 7, in your book, you give a diagram of the “surface
on which we live,” and the “supposed globe”—the supposed “hollow
globe”—of the heavens, arched over the said surface. Now, Mr. Proctor,
you picture the surface on which we live in exact accordance with your
verbal description. And what is that description? We shall scarcely be
believed when we say that we give it just as it stands: “The level of the
surface on which we live.” And, that there may be no mistake about the
meaning of the word “level,” we remind you that your diagram proves that
the level that you mean is the level of the mechanic, a plane surface, and not
the “level” of the astronomer, which is a convex surface! In short, your
description of the Earth is exactly what you say it “seems to be,” and, yet,
what you say it is not: the very aim of your book being to say so! And we
call this the prostitution of the printing press. And it is all the evidence that
is necessary to bring the charge home to you, since the words and the
diagram are in page 7 of your own book. You know, then, that Earth is a
Plane—and so do we.

Now for the evidence of this grand fact, that other people may know it as
well as you: remembering, from first to last, that you have not dared to
bring forward a single item from the mass of evidence which is to be found
in the “Zetetic Philosophy,” by “Parallax,” a work the influence of which it
was the avowed object of your own book to crush!—except that of the three
boats, an experiment which you have never tried, and the result of which
has never been known, by anyone who has tried it, to be as you say it is!

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance
presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that

of a concave surface—this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface
that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a
level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof
that Earth is not a globe.

2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water,
this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the
surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental
proof that Earth is not a globe,

3. Surveyors’ operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals
are conducted without the slightest “allowance” being made for
“curvature,” although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely
necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the
sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a
thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite
incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “convexity.” It is, therefore, a
reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at
distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed “curvature” given
by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases,
down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is
seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be
nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in
order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no “curvature,”
on the surface of the sea—“the level of the sea,”—ridiculous though it is to
be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a
conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us,
we shall find that she will apparently “rise”—to the extent of her own
height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates
still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they

approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the
size they are in fact. That there is no other “rise” than the one spoken of is
plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of
the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a
level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J.
Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell’s balloon. So that a ship five miles
away may be imagined to be “coming up” the imaginary downward curve
of the Earth’s surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill,
Baltimore, we may see twenty-five miles away, on a level with the eye—
that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined
to be “rounding the curve,” and “coming up!” This is a plain proof that the
Earth is not a globe.

7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see
for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears “hull
down,” as it is called, it is because the hull is “behind the water:” for,
vessels have been seen, and may often be seen again, presenting the
appearance spoken of, and away—far away—beyond those vessels, and, at
the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement
of tall trees, towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the “hull-down”
ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up
against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a
contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof
that Earth is not a globe.

8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best—
because the truest—thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such
a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would
wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea
were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of
this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their
purpose tolerably well—and only tolerably well, for many ships are
wrecked owing to the error of which we speak—that the surface of the sea
is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship “supposes” the Earth

to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common
system of “plane sailing,” a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

10. That the mariners’ compass points north and south at the same time is a
fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be
impossible if the thing were placed on a globe with “north” and “south” at
the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the
school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of
reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

11. As the mariners’ compass points north and south at one time, and as the
North, to which it is attracted, is that part of the Earth situate where the
North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south “point” or “pole”
but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its
whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

12. As we have seen that there is, really, no south point (or pole) but an
infinity of points forming, together, a vast circumference—the boundary of
the known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid defiance to
man’s onward course in a southerly direction—so there can be no east or
west “points,” just as there is no “yesterday,” and no “to-morrow.” In fact,
as there is one point that is fixed (the North), it is impossible for any other
point to be fixed likewise. East and west are, therefore, merely directions at
right angles with a north and south line: and as the south point of the
compass shifts round to all parts of the circular boundary, (as it may be
carried round the central North), so the directions east and west, crossing
this line, continued, form a circle, at any latitude. A westerly
circumnavigation, therefore, is a going round with the North Star
continually on the right hand, and an easterly circumnavigation is
performed only when the reverse condition of things is maintained, the
North Star being on the left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken
together, form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a globe.

13. As the mariners’ compass points north and south at one and the same
time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can

be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are
semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.

14. “Parallels of latitude” only—of all imaginary lines on the surface of the
Earth—are circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre
to the southern circumference. The mariner’s course in the direction of any
one of these concentric circles is his longitude, the degrees of which
INCREASE to such an extent beyond the equator (going southwards) that
hundreds of vessels have been wrecked because of the false idea created by
the untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together, causing the
sailor to be continually getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the
Earth in its true form all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be
conducted anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important
practical proof that the Earth is not a globe.

15. The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are
taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the
other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and
absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the
simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands, without argument, a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.

16. If the Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45
“degrees” south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the
same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the
distance—to say the least of it—or, double the distance it ought to be
according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general
character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have
been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows
that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a
theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.

18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all,
he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one

faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full
command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one;
but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!
They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give
him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that
astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures
—deceive them—it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in
short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

19. Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to do a
thing. Now, astronomers (one after another—following a leader), while they
are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper half of this
supposititious globe in their books, and, in this way, forming the level
surface on which they describe man as living and moving! Now, if the Earth
were really a globe, this would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal
mode of endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers are
all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

20. The common sense of man tells him—if nothing else told him—that
there is an “up” and a “down” in nature, even as regards the heavens and
the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion
that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to
common sense—yes, and to inspiration—and this is a common sense proof
that the Earth is not a globe.

21. Man’s experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that
can live and move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the
floor: and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd
of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really
bound to the earth by a force which fastens them to it “like needles round a
spherical lodestone,” a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all
human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common
sense and ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that
the Earth is not a globe.

22. God’s Truth never—no, never—requires a falsehood to help it along.
Mr. Proctor, in his “Lessons,” says: Men “have been able to go round and
round the Earth in several directions.” Now, in this case, the word “several”
will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible
to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly
direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to
Earth as a Plane. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to
damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that
their cause is a bad one, and—a proof that Earth is not a globe.

23. If astronomical works be searched through and through, there will not
be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly statement
respecting a proof of the Earth’s “rotundity.” Proctor speaks of “proofs
which serve to show … that the Earth is not flat,” and says that man “finds
reason to think that the Earth is not flat,” and speaks of certain matters
being “explained by supposing” that the Earth is a globe; and says that
people have “assured themselves that it is a globe;” but he says, also, that
there is a “most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:” just as though
anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a proof—a proof that
proves and settles the whole question. This, however, all the money in the
United States Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all
so rich that they don’t want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is
not a globe.

24. When a man speaks of a “most complete” thing amongst several other
things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall
short of something which the “most complete” thing possesses. And when it
is known that the “most complete” thing is an entire failure, it is plain that
the others, all and sundry, are worthless. Proctor’s “most complete proof
that the Earth is a globe” lies in what he calls “the fact” that distances from
place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the
Earth at 45 “degrees” south of the equator is twice the distance it would be
on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of the age calls “a
fact” is NOT a fact; that his “most complete proof” is a most complete
failure; and that he might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO
PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe, there would,

necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us, it follows that when
astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out—to
say nothing about picking one up—that they give us a proof that Earth is
not a globe.

25. The surveyor’s plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic
Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles—from Valentia, Ireland, to St.
John’s, Newfoundland—the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL
surface—not the astronomers’ “level,” either! The authoritative drawings,
published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a
practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

26. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of
departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to
Newfoundland, according to the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-
hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so—the fact of
its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable
surveyors,—it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

27. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the
Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which
—if anything were needed to do so—would show its utter absurdity. It is
this:—If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we
consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and
Valentia would just as well “curvate” downwards as it did in the other case!
Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is
interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man
upon its surface—the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is
an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all:—an evident proof
that the Earth is not a globe.

28. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s
surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between
them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an
ocean, as a vast “hill”—of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of
the matter, would form a “hill of water” more than a hundred miles high!

The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists
whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and
it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a
satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same
general characteristics—no matter its size—as a small globe that may be
stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must
also the large one—no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is
“supposed” to be a large globe, has no sides or bottom as the small globe
has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its
surface would have to look downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to
conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical
diagrams indicate—at angles varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below
the “horizontal” line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught
that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!)
But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has
ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and
false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy
and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.

31. If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is
said to be—twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing
which is called a “proof” of the Earth’s roundness, and which is presented
to children at school, is, that if we stand on the sea-shore we may see the
ships, as they approach us, absolutely “coming up,” and that, as we are able
to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are
“behind the earth’s curve.” Now, since, if this were the case—that is, if the
lower parts of these ships were behind a “hill of water” at all—the size of
the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would
only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round
it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is
preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable

cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it
is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

32. It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This
is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface of a plain or a
prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about
three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that
distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently,
objects no higher than we stand—say, six feet—and which are at that
distance (three miles), have reached the “vanishing point,” and are beyond
the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship
disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there
being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the Earth’s rotundity, it is a
clear proof that Earth is not a globe.

33. If the Earth were a globe, people—except those on the top—would,
certainly, have to be “fastened” to its surface by some means or other,
whether by the “attraction” of astronomers or by some other undiscovered
and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its
surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion
on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is
not a globe.

34. If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be—if we could
imagine the thing to be peopled all round—“antipodes:” “people who,” says
the dictionary, “living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves,
have their feet opposite to ours:”—people who are hanging heads
downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But, since the theory allows us
to travel to those parts of the Earth where the people are said to be heads
downwards, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends
whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the
whole thing is a myth—a dream—a delusion—and a snare; and, instead of
there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate the popular
theory, it is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

35. If we examine a true picture of the distant horizon, or the thing itself,
we shall find that it coincides exactly with a perfectly straight and level
line. Now, since there could be nothing of the kind on a globe, and we find
it to be the case all over the Earth, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

36. If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see
the “light” exhibited at Sharpe’s Island for an hour before the steamer gets
to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel’s
side will be in a line with the “light” and in the line of sight; and we shall
find that in the whole journey the light will not vary in the slightest degree
in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been
traversed, the astronomers’ theory of “curvature” demands a difference (one
way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8
inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 112 hair’s breadths, we
have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved,
which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

37. If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for nobody
knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and antarctic
regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is:—for their theory demands it!
But, as this fact—the six months day and six months night—is nowhere
found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly with everything else that
we know about the Earth as a plane, and, whilst it overthrows the “accepted
theory,” it furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a globe.

38. When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle round
the heavens in north latitude, the inhabitants of high northern latitudes see
him skimming round their horizon and forming the break of their long day,
in a horizontal course, not disappearing again for six months, as he rises
higher and higher in the heavens whilst he makes his twenty-four hour
circle until June, when he begins to descend and goes on until he disappears
beyond the horizon in September. Thus, in the northern regions, they have
that which the traveller calls the “midnight Sun,” as he sees that luminary at
a time when, in his more southern latitude, it is always midnight. If, then,
for one-half the year, we may see for ourselves the Sun making horizontal
circles round the heavens, it is presumptive evidence that, for the other half-

year, he is doing the same, although beyond the boundary of our vision.
This, being a proof that Earth is a plane, is, therefore, a proof that the Earth
is not a globe.

39. We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and
over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over which
hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is
necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the Sun in a
yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward the evidence of
which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

40. The Suez Canal, which joins the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, is
about one hundred miles long; it forms a straight and level surface of water
from one end to the other; and no “allowance” for any supposed
“curvature” was made in its construction. It is a clear proof that the Earth is
not a globe.

41. When astronomers assert that it is “necessary” to make “allowance for
curvature” in canal construction, it is, of course, in order that, in their idea,
a level cutting may be had for the water. How flagrantly, then, do they
contradict themselves when they say that the curved surface of the Earth is
a “true level!” What more can they want for a canal than a true level? Since
they contradict themselves in such an elementary point as this, it is an
evidence that the whole thing is a delusion, and we have a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.

42. It is certain that the theory of the Earth’s rotundity and that of its
mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is
virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move,
either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily
proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles
in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there
would unquestionably be a difference in the result of firing off a projectile
in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact,
there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any

alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.

43. The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely to fall
from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth,
since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will participate in that
motion; but, if an object be thrown upwards from a body at rest, and, again,
from a body in motion, the circumstances attending its descent will be very
different. In the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the
place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall behind—
the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the rear. Now, fix a
gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it
will fall by the gun. If the Earth travelled eleven-hundred miles a minute,
the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the opposite direction to that of
the supposed motion. Since, then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth’s
fancied motion is negatived, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

44. It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body
in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short
of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of
motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in
a second of time, “from west to east,” it would make all the difference
imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in
practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may
be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion
of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

45. The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated
work on Astronomy, the “Ipswich Lectures,” says: “Jupiter is a large planet
that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?” Of course, the common
sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an
astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow
the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up
a proof that Earth is not a globe.

46. It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a
circular course round the central North. The only north point or centre of
motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North
Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When,
therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the
Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the
Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then,
the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd;
and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it
is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is—a planet; and, if not a
planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

47. In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits
the sea-shore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it
becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey,
pictorially, an idea of the Earth’s “convexity,” to do so with even a shadow
of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so
well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age,
in page 15 of his “Lessons,” gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, “as
though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;” and there—of a
truth—is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the
“hill” from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were
true in all its parts—and it is outrageously false in several—it would show
that Earth is a cylinder; for the “hill” shown is simply up one side of the
level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since,
then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the
Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

48. In Mr. Proctor’s “Lessons in Astronomy,” page 15, a ship is represented
as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or
distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears
above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer’s line of
vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further
and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the
horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an
observer, under the conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the

picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a
disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above
his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower
down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear—to anyone
with his vision undistorted—as going in any other direction, curved or
straight. Since, then, the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth
to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the
Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-
artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder,
and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not a globe.

49. It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all
manner of directions—yes, and frequently, in different directions at the
same time—from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other.
Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at
the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move
towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a
second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the
opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the
motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance.
But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that
move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.
We have, then, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

50. We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called The Bible,
nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to
end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be
made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the
astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is
the groundwork of modern infidelity. But, since every one of many, many
allusions to the Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be
demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the Earth being
“stretched out” “above the waters,” as “standing in the water and out of the
water,” of its being “established that it cannot be moved,” we have a store
from which to take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one
proof—the Scriptural proof—that Earth is not a globe.

51. A “Standing Order” exists in the English Houses of Parliament that, in
the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a “horizontal
line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”
Now, if the Earth were a globe, this “Order” could not be carried out: but, it
is carried out: therefore, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

52. It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far greater
accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal
latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees south, 18 kinds of
plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees nearer the northern centre, there
are 870 species; and, indeed, all the facts in the case show that the Sun’s
power is less intense at places in the southern region than it is in
corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is
inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light
by the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of
“Parallax.” This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

53. Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if
the Earth were not “stretched out” as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the
Newtonian theory suggests, it would certainly get as intensive a share of the
Sun’s rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of
the fact stated, far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to
complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he
goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less
time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then, the facts could
not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not
a globe.

54. The aeronaut is able to start in his balloon and remain for hours in the
air, at an elevation of several miles, and come down again in the same
county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the Earth drag the
balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second motion, it must be left
far behind, in space: but, since balloons have never been known thus to be
left, it is a proof that the Earth, does not move, and, therefore, a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.

55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon “borrow”
her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun’s rays are hot and the Moon’s
light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are “two
great lights,” as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a
mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

56. The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same
time—the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west—the
Sun’s light positively putting the Moon’s light out by sheer contrast! If the
accepted Newtonian theory were correct, and the Moon had her light from
the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that
luminary—if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its
face! But as the Moon’s light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that
the theory fails; and this gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

57. The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case
of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its
shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with
both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be
the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder;
and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

58. Astronomers have never agreed amongst themselves about a rotating
Moon revolving round a rotating and revolving Earth—this Earth, Moon,
planets and their satellites all, at the same time dashing through space,
around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the constellation Hercules,
at the rate of four millions of miles a day! And they never will: agreement is
impossible! With the Earth a plane and without motion, the whole thing is
clear. And if a straw will show which way the wind blows, this may be
taken as a pretty strong proof that the Earth is not a globe.

59. Mr. Proctor says: “The Sun is so far off that even moving from one side
of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen in a different
direction—at least the difference is too small to be measured.” Now, since
we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see the Sun at mid-
day to the south, and that at the same distance south of the equator we see

the Sun at mid-day to the north, our very shadows on the ground cry aloud
against the delusion of the day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

60. There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that of the
Sun’s distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes
everything. Now, since modern astronomers, in their estimates of this
distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures from three millions
of miles to a hundred and four millions—to-day, the distance being
something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much: for, not many years
ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, “accurately,” as 95,370,000!—it follows
that they don’t know, and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they
ever will know, the Sun’s distance! And since all this speculation and
absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering,
heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth
is a plane, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.

61. It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod is like
a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be
fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all; and that as
modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun’s distance from the
Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is not known, it is a system of
measurements without a measuring-rod—a ship without a rudder. Now,
since it is not difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on
which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

62. It is commonly asserted that “the Earth must be a globe because people
have sailed round it.” Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing
unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the
Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that
Earth is not a globe.

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in
sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our
unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the
vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through
a “hill of water,” it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of

water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided
vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

64. Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascends, says: “The horizon
always appeared on a level with the car.” Now, since we may search
amongst the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the
surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a
clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.

65. The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram which is supposed to
represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each
side and one hanging head downwards, says: “We should dwell on this
point until it appears to us as truly up,”—in the direction given to these
figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top!
Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is,
really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we
think it is a fact, cannot be a system based on God’s truth, which never
requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy
of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this
conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

66. It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be
right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is well
known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred years, on the basis
of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they are predicted by modern
observers. If, then, the predictions prove the truth of the particular theories
current at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as the
other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in
China. Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no “allowance” was
made for “curvature.” Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese
proof that the Earth is not a globe.

68. Mr. J. N. Lockyer says: “Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and
set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from

west to east.” Now, this is no better than though we were to say—Because a
man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the
man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it
follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and,
therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

69. Mr. Lockyer says: “The appearances connected with the rising and
setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and
the Sun and stars travelling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while
the Sun and stars are at rest.” Now, since true science does not allow of any
such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical
astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We
have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

70. Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the
Earth’s rotundity by means of ships rounding a “hill of water,” uses these
words:—“Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we
explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do.” This is utterly
unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and
ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce.
The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must
be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is
a proof that Earth is not a globe.

71. The astronomers’ theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion
that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an
impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators
when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact,
like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.

72. Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth’s “rotundity,” the
perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the
walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not strictly so! But, since all
observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which
theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in

opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

73. Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been
suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the
idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its “axis,” by the
varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath
—asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the
pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But,
since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the
wrong way for the “rotation” theory, chagrin has taken the place of
exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts
to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

74. As to the supposed “motion of the whole Solar system in space,” the
Astronomer Royal of England once said: “The matter is left in a most
delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if anyone can help us
out of it.” But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, to-day, in a most
deplorable state of uncertainty—for, whether the Moon goes round the
Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of “raging”
controversy—it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong;
and, all hot from the raging furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a
glowing proof that Earth is not a globe.

75. Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up
a body like the Sun—the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns
would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a
“small star!” And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes
30,000,000 years for the light of some of these stars to reach us at
12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, “I think a moderate
estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years!” “Its weight,”
says the same individual, “is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!” Now,
since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of
them to the world is an insult—an outrage. And though they have all arisen
from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the

assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and
leave it lying in the dust—a proof that Earth is not a globe.

76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says: “Although the path of
the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the
path by a straight line on a plane surface.” (And plane sailing is the rule.)
Now, since it is altogether impossible to “represent” a curved line by a
straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line
represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, since it is the surface of
the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows
that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a
professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

77. “Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble
over!” is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too
hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, just what man by his
observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it “seems” to
be—flat; and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a
complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a
globe.

78. “Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,” is often said
—by those who don’t know. The British Ship Challenger recently
completed the circuit of the Southern region—indirectly, to be sure—but
she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles—a stretch
long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.
This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

79. The remark is common enough that we can see the circle of the Earth if
we cross the ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we tie a
donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all around him,
it is only a circular disc that he has to do with, not a spherical mass. Since,
then, circular discs may be seen anywhere—as well from a balloon in the
air as from the deck of a ship, or from the standpoint of the donkey, it is a
proof that the surface of the Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.

80. It is “supposed,” in the regular course of the Newtonian theory, that the
Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its
position in December. Now, since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see
the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it—and out of the
very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window
—all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we
have made no motion at all. It is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

81. Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round the Earth
from west to east. But observation—man’s most certain mode of gaining
knowledge—shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite
direction—from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing can
possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time, it is a proof that
the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

82. Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about 28
days. Well, we may see her making her journey round, every day, if we
make use of our eyes—and these are about the best things we have to use.
The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun
to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a
revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not
constitute a going round in the opposite one—as the astronomers would
have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary
for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the
astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of reasoning
to show that we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

83. It has been shown that meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that
it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from
which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word “degree,”—the
360th part of a circle—meridians have no degrees: for no one knows
anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But
astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of
longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true.
Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis

of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is
not a globe.

84. If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie,
the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that
which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a
large one; and travelling away from an elevated object, no matter how high,
over a level surface, no matter how far, will cause the appearance in
question—the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers,
however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel
southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But, as it is
clear that an appearance which is fully accounted for on the basis of known
facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only
a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make
way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south—that is, rivers
are flowing in all directions over the Earth’s surface, and at the same time.
Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-
hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an “up” and a
“down” in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow
up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.

86. If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through “space” at the
rate of “a hundred miles in five seconds of time,” the waters of seas and
oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface—the assertion
that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon
human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth—that is, the habitable
world of dry land—is found to be “standing out of the water and in the
water” of the “mighty deep,” whose circumferential boundary is ice, we
may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt
before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with—a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.

87. The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands a theory to keep
the water on its surface; but, as the theory which is given for this purpose is
as much opposed to all human experience as the one which it is intended to
uphold, it is an illustration of the miserable makeshifts to which
astronomers are compelled to resort, and affords a proof that the Earth is not
a globe.

88. If we could—after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth
—conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could
exist, the power—no matter by what name it be called—that would hold
them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that
they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid
mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and
move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and
beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

89. It is well known that the law regulating the apparent decrease in the size
of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very
different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are
non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark
night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when
close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: “his apparent size does not
change,”—far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us,
subsequently, that, if the traveller goes so far south that the North Star
appears on the horizon, “the Sun should therefore look much larger”—if the
Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, “the path followed cannot have
been the straight course,”—but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but
common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the
way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of a thing which has never been
known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be
trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector—to
trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the “English Mechanic” for Oct. 20, 1871,
boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic philosophy by telling
him that his arguments were all very good, but that “it seems as though
[mark the language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer.”
And Mr. Proctor concludes thus: “He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in

‘Parallax,’ he had ‘written himself down an ass.’ ”) Well, then: trickery or
no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit—a
fraud—no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does
not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which its
advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, would crush if they could find a
weapon to use—the Zetetic philosophy of “Parallax”—is destined to live!
This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

90. “Is water level, or is it not?” was a question once asked of an
astronomer. “Practically, yes; theoretically, no,” was the reply. Now, when
theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the
theory. (It is getting too late, now, to say “So much the worse for the
facts!”) To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing
water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic
philosophy. And since this will have to be done—sooner or later,—it is a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.

91. “By actual observation,” says Schœdler, in his “Book of Nature,” “we
know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly
assert that the earth is so also.” This is a fair sample of all astronomical
reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst “other” things, the likeness
between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schœdler to tell us
that “heavenly bodies” are spherical, but “the greatest astronomer of the
age” will not, now, dare to tell us that The Earth is—and attempt to prove
it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth
and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly
bodies is premature—unscientific—false! This is a proof that Earth is not a
globe.

92. “There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round
the sun,” says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when
theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in
teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the
“motion” of the Earth is supposition only—since, indeed, it is necessary to
suppose it at all—it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since

“mobility” and “sphericity” stand or fall together, we have before us a proof
that Earth is not a globe.

93. We have seen that astronomers—to give us a level surface on which to
live—have cut off one-half of the “globe” in a certain picture in their books.
[See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance
of their “spherical theory” is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or
fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing
remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth
is not a globe.

94. In “Cornell’s Geography” there is an “Illustrated proof of the Form of
the Earth.” A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as
she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the
supposed circumference of the “globe”—about 5,000 miles. Ten such ships
as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the
“arc,” making 500 miles as the length of the ship. The man, in the picture,
who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the
tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 500 miles high. These
are the proportions, then, of men, towers, and ships which are necessary in
order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she “rounds the curve” of
the “great hill of water” over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it
must be remembered that this supposed “proof” depends upon lines and
angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics.
Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and
men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be—a proof of
rotundity—but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In
short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

95. In “Cornell’s Intermediate Geography,” (1881) page 12, is an
“Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water.” This illustration
is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a
plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a
pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.

96. If we refer to the diagram in “Cornell’s Geography,” page 4, and notice
the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that,
though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is
nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This is an illustration of the way in
which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary,
or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short,
there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says: “The simplicity with which the
seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the
obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive
proof of the correctness”—of the Newtonian theory; “for on no other
rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can
these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for.” But, as true
philosophy has no “suppositions” at all—and has nothing to do with
“suppositions”—and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by
facts, the “presumptive proof” falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule
it so richly deserves; and out of the dust of Mr. Hind’s “rational
suppositions” we see standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

98. Mr. Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is “carried
across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth.” Now, this is
nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly
carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across
anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is
carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly
move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that
the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide
gently over a star “millions of millions” of miles away is simply monstrous;
whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars,
though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to
be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, “the further away they are, the less they
will seem to shift.” Why, in the name of common sense, should observers
have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not
move a hair’s-breadth, if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate
of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor’s mass of

“six thousand million million million tons” is “rolling, surging, flying,
darting on through space for ever” with a velocity compared with which a
shot from a cannon is a “very slow coach,” with such unerring accuracy that
a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-
eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the
thousandth part of a hair’s-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with
which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter
insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of “Zadkeil’s
Almanac,” says: “We declare that this ‘motion’ is all mere ‘bosh’; and that
the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks
for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity.” Since, then, these
absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no
necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a “strong
presumptive proof”—as Mr. Hind would say—that the Zetetic philosophy is
true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five
yards in their estimate of the Earth’s diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in
his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get “round
numbers!” This is like splitting a hair on one side of the head and shaving
all the hair off on the other! Oh, “science!” Can there be any truth in a
science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy
—not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy
a noble art and science, based—as we have a thousand times proved it to be
—on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side
and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and
take from it a proof that the “science” which tolerates it is a false—instead
of being an “exact”—science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.

100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings
“noon” to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his
journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun’s position
have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun’s position have
still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the
Earth where “time” is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be

“put on,” or we may be said to “gain time.” If, on the other hand, we travel
westerly, we arrive at places where it is still “morning,” the watch has to be
“put back,” and it may be said that we “lose time.” But, if we travel easterly
so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will
neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly,
and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will
compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that
direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then,
instead of being evidence of the Earth’s “rotundity,” as it is imagined to be,
is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not
a globe.

“And what then?” What then! No intelligent man will ask the question; and
he who may be called an intellectual man will know that the demonstration
of the fact that the Earth is not a globe is the grandest snapping of the
chains of slavery that ever took place in the world of literature or science.
The floodgates of human knowledge are opened afresh and an impetus is
given to investigation and discovery where all was stagnation,
bewilderment and dreams! Is it nothing to know that infidelity cannot stand
against the mighty rush of the living water of Truth that must flow on and
on until the world shall look “up” once more “to Him that stretched out the
earth above the waters”—“to Him that made great lights:—the Sun to rule
by day—the Moon and Stars to rule by night?” Is it nothing to know and to
feel that the heavenly bodies were made for man, and that the monstrous
dogma of an infinity of worlds is overthrown for ever? The old-time
English “Family Herald,” for July 25, 1885, says, in its editorial, that “The
earth’s revolution on its own axis was denied, against Galileo and
Copernicus, by the whole weight of the Church of Rome.” And, in an article
on “The Pride of Ignorance,” too!—the editor not knowing that if the Earth
had an axis to call its “own”—which the Church well knew it had not, and,
therefore, could not admit—it would not “revolve” on it; and that the
theoretical motion on an axis is that of rotation, and not revolution! Is it
nothing to know that “the whole weight of the Church of Rome” was
thrown in the right direction, although it has swayed back again like a
gigantic pendulum that will regain its old position before long? Is it nothing
to know that the “pride of ignorance” is on the other side? Is it nothing to

know that, with all the Bradlaughs and Ingersolls of the world telling us to
the contrary—Biblical science is true? Is it nothing to know that we are
living on a body at rest, and not upon a heavenly body whirling and dashing
through space in every conceivable way and with a velocity utterly
inconceivable? Is it nothing to know that we can look stedfastly up to
Heaven instead of having no heaven to look up to at all? Is it nothing,
indeed, to be in the broad daylight of Truth and to be able to go on towards
a possible perfection, instead of being wrapped in the darkness of error on
the rough ocean of Life, and finding ourselves stranded at last—God alone
knows where?

Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., August, 1885.

APPENDIX TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The following letters remain unanswered, at the time of going to press,
December 7, 1885:—

“71 Chew Street, Baltimore, Nov. 21, 1885. R. A. Proctor, Esq., St. Joe,
Mo. Sir: I have sent you two copies of my ‘One Hundred Proofs that the
Earth is Not a Globe,’ and, as several weeks have since elapsed and I have
not heard from you, I write to inform you that if you have any remarks to
make concerning that publication, and will let me have them in the course
of a week or ten days, I will print them—if you say what you may wish to
say in about five or six hundred words—in the second edition of the
pamphlet, which will very soon be called for. Allow me to say that, as this
work is not only ‘dedicated’ to you but attacks your teachings, the public
will be looking for something from your pen very shortly. I hope they may
not be disappointed. Yours in the cause of truth, W. Carpenter.”

“71 Chew Street, Baltimore, Nov. 24, 1885. Spencer F. Baird, Esq.,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Sir:—I had the
pleasure, several weeks ago, of sending you my ‘One Hundred Proofs that
the Earth is Not a Globe.’ I hope you received them. A second edition is
now called for, and I should esteem it a favor if you would write me a few
words concerning them that I may print with this forthcoming edition as an
appendix to them. If you think any of the ‘Hundred Proofs’ are unsound, I
will print all you may have to say about them, if not over 400 words, as
above stated. I have made Richard A. Proctor, Esq., a similar offer, giving
him, of course, a little more space. I feel sure that the very great importance
of this matter will prompt you to give it your immediate attention. I have
the honor to be, sir, yours sincerely, Wm. Carpenter.”

Copies of the first edition of this pamphlet have been sent to the leading
newspapers of this country and of England, and to very many of the most
renowned scientific men of the two countries—from the Astronomer Royal,
of England, to Dr. Gilman, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Several
copies have been sent to graduates of different Universities, on application,
in consequence of the subjoined advertisement, which has appeared in
several newspapers:—

“WANTED.—A Scholar of ripe attainments to review Carpenter’s ‘One
Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe.’ Liberal remuneration
offered. Apply to Wm. Carpenter, 71 Chew Street, Baltimore. N. B.—No
one need apply who has not courage enough to append his name to the
Review for publication.”

☞ We should be pleased to hear from some of the gentlemen in time for the
insertion of their courageous attacks in the Third edition!

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
“This can only be described as an extraordinary book …. His arguments are
certainly plausible and ingenious, and even the reader who does not agree
with him will find a singular interest and fascination in analyzing the ‘one
hundred proofs.’… The proofs are set forth in brief, forcible, compact, very
clear paragraphs, the meaning of which can be comprehended at a
glance.”—Daily News, Sept. 24.

“Throughout the entire work there are discernible traces of a strong and
reliant mind, and such reliance as can only have been acquired by unbiassed
observation, laborious investigation, and final conviction; and the masterly
handling of so profound a theme displays evidence of grave and active
researches. There is no groping wildly about in the vagueness of theoretical
speculations, no empty hypotheses inflated with baseless assertions and
false illustrations, but the practical and perspicuous conclusions of a mind
emancipated from the prevailing influences of fashionable credence and
popular prejudice, and subordinate only to those principles emanating from
reason and common sense.”—H. D. T., Woodberry News, Sept. 26, 1885.

“We do not profess to be able to overthrow any of his ‘Proofs.’ And we
must admit, and our readers will be inclined to do the same, that it is
certainly a strange thing that Mr. Wm. Carpenter, or anyone else, should be
able to bring together ‘One Hundred Proofs’ of anything in the world if that
thing is not right, while we keep on asking for one proof, that is really a
satisfactory one, on the other side. If these ‘Hundred Proofs’ are nonsense,
we cannot prove them to be so, and some of our scientific men had better
try their hands, and we think they will try their heads pretty badly into the
bargain.”—The Woodberry News, Baltimore, Sept. 19, 1885.

“This is a remarkable pamphlet. The author has the courage of his
convictions, and presents them with no little ingenuity, however musty they
may appear to nineteenth century readers. He takes for his text a statement

of Prof. Proctor’s that ‘The Earth on which we live and move seems to be
flat,’ and proceeds with great alacrity to marshal his hundred arguments in
proof that it not only seems but is flat, ‘an extended plane, stretched out in
all directions away from the central North.’ He enumerates all the reasons
offered by scientists for a belief in the rotundity of the earth and evidently
to his own complete satisfaction refutes them. He argues that the heavenly
bodies were made solely to light this world, that the belief in an infinity of
worlds is a monstrous dogma, contrary to Bible teaching, and the great
stronghold of the infidel; and that the Church of Rome was right when it
threw the whole weight of its influence against Galileo and Copernicus
when they taught the revolution of the earth on its axis.”—Michigan
Christian Herald, Oct. 15, 1885.

“So many proofs.”—Every Saturday, Sept. 26, 1885.

“A highly instructive and very entertaining work …. The book is well worth
reading.”—Protector, Baltimore, Oct. 3, 1885.

“The book will be sought after and read with peculiar interest.”—Baltimore
Labor Free Press, Oct. 17, 1885.

“Some of them [the proofs] are of sufficient force to demand an answer
from the advocates of the popular theory.”—Baltimore Episcopal
Methodist, October 28, 1885.

“Showing considerable smartness both in conception and argument.”—
Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati, O., Oct. 21, 1885.

“Forcible and striking in the extreme.”—Brooklyn Market Journal.

Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., December 7, 1885.

[Appendix to Third Edition.]

COPY OF LETTER FROM RICHARD A.
PROCTOR, ESQ.
5 Montague Street, Russell Square, London, W.C., 12 Dec., 1885.

W. Carpenter, Esq., Baltimore.

Dear Sir,—I am obliged to you for the copy of your “One Hundred Proofs
that the Earth is not a Globe,” and for the evident kindness of your intention
in dedicating the work to me. The only further remark it occurs to me to
offer is that I call myself rather a student of astronomy than an astronomer.

Yours faithfully,
RICHARD A. PROCTOR.

P.S. Perhaps the pamphlet might more precisely be called “One hundred
difficulties for young students of astronomy.”

[Appendix to Fourth Edition.]

COPY OF LETTER FROM SPENCER F. BAIRD,
ESQ.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., Jan. 6, 1886.

Dear Sir,—A copy of your “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a
globe” was duly received, and was deposited in Library of Congress
October 8, 1884. [1885] A pressure of much more important work has
prevented any attempt at reviewing these hundred proofs:—which however
have doubtless been thoroughly investigated by the inquisitive astronomers
and geodesists of the last four centuries.

Yours very respectfully,
SPENCER F. BAIRD, Secretary S. I.

Mr. William Carpenter, 71, Chew Street, Baltimore, Md.

Copy of a letter from one of the several applicants for the “One Hundred
Proofs” for the purpose of reviewing them. The writer is Professor of
Mathematics at the High School, Auburn, N. Y., and, in his application for
the pamphlet, says: “Am a Yale graduate and a Yale Law School man: took
the John A. Porter Prize (literary) ($250) at Yale College.”

Auburn, Dec. 10th, 1885. My Dear Sir: Your treatise was received. I have
looked it over and noted it somewhat. A review of it to do it justice would
be a somewhat long and laborious task. Before I undertook so much thought
I would write and ask What and how much you expect: how elaborately you
wished it discussed: and what remuneration might be expected. It sets forth
many new and strange doctrines which would have to be thoroughly
discussed and mastered before reviewed. I am hard at work at present but

would like to tackle this if it would be for my interest as well as yours.
Hope you will let me know very soon. Very respectfully,

To Mr. W. Carpenter, Baltimore, Md. FRANK STRONG.

NOTE.—Unless a man be willing to sell his soul for his supposed worldly
“interest,” he will not dare to “tackle” the “One Hundred Proofs that the
Earth is Not a Globe.” No man with well-balanced faculties will thus
condemn himself. We charge the mathematicians of the world that, if they
cannot say what they think of this pamphlet in a dozen words, they are
entitled to no other name than—cowards!

Baltimore, Maryland, May 22, 1886.

APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH EDITION.
Editorial from the “New York World,” of August 2, 1886:—

THE EARTH IS FLAT.

The iconoclastic tendencies of the age have received new impetus from Mr.
William Carpenter, who comes forward with one hundred proofs that the
earth is not a globe. It will be a sad shock to many conservatives who have
since their childhood fondly held to the conviction that “the earth is round
like an orange, a little flattened at the poles.” To find that, after all, we have
been living all these years on a prosaic and unromantic plane is far from
satisfactory. We have rather gloried in the belief that the semi-barbarous
nations on the other side of the earth did not carry their heads in the same
direction in which ours point. It is hard to accept the assertion that the
cannibals on savage islands are walking about on the same level with the
civilized nations of our little world.

But Mr. Carpenter has one hundred proofs that such is the unsatisfactory
truth. Not only that, but the iconoclast claims that we are not whirling
through space at a terrible rate, but are absolutely stationary. Some
probability is given to this proposition by the present hot weather. The earth
seems to be becalmed. If it were moving at the rate of nineteen miles a
second wouldn’t there be a breeze? This question is thrown out as perhaps
offering the one hundred and first proof that the earth is not a globe. Mr.
Carpenter may obtain the proof in detail at the office at our usual rates. A
revolution will, of course, take place in the school geographies as soon as
Mr. Carpenter’s theories have been closely studied. No longer will the little
boy answer the question as to the shape of the earth by the answer which
has come ringing down the ages, “It’s round like a ball, sir.” No. He’ll have
to use the unpoetic formula, “It’s flat like a pancake, sir.”

But, perhaps, after we have become used to the new idea it will not be
unpleasant. The ancients flourished in the belief that the earth was a great
plane. Why shouldn’t we be equally fortunate? It may be romantic but it is
not especially comforting to think that the earth is rushing through space
twisting and curving like a gigantic ball delivered from the hand of an
enormous pitcher. Something in the universe might make a base hit if we
kept on and we would be knocked over an aerial fence and never found.
Perhaps, after all, it is safer to live on Mr. Carpenter’s stationary plane.

The “Record,” of Philadelphia, June 5, 1886, has the following, in the
Literary Notes:—“Under the title One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not
a Globe, Mr. William Carpenter, of Baltimore, publishes a pamphlet which
is interesting on account of the originality of the views advanced, and, from
his standpoint, the very logical manner in which he seeks to establish their
truth. Mr. Carpenter is a disciple of what is called the Zetetic school of
philosophy, and was referee for Mr. John Hampden when that gentleman, in
1870, made a wager with Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, of England, that the
surface of standing water is always level, and therefore that the earth is flat.
Since then he has combated his views with much earnestness, both in
writing and on the platform, and, whatever opinions we may have on the
subject, a perusal of his little book will prove interesting and afford room
for careful study.”

“The motto which he puts on the cover—‘Upright, Downright,
Straightforward’—is well chosen, for it is an upright lie, a downright
invention, and a straightforward butt of a bull at a locomotive.”—The
Florida Times Union, Dec. 13, 1885. Editor, Charles H. Jones. [Pray, Mr.
Jones, tell us what you mean by “an upright lie.”!!]

“We have received a pamphlet from a gentleman who thinks to prove that
the earth is flat, but who succeeds only in showing that he is himself
one.”—New York Herald, Dec. 19, 1885. [The reviewer, in this case, is, no
doubt, a very “sharp” man, but his honesty—if he have any at all—is jagged

and worn out. The “quotations” which he gives are fraudulent, there being
nothing like them in the pamphlet.]

“The author of the pamphlet is no ‘flat,’ though he may perhaps be called a
‘crank.’ ”—St. Catharines (Can.) Evening Jour., Dec. 23.

“To say that the contents of the book are erudite and entertaining does not
do Mr. Carpenter’s astronomical ability half credit.”—The Sunday Truth,
Buffalo, Dec. 27, 1885.

“The entire work is very ingeniously gotten up …. The matter of perspective
is treated in a very clever manner, and the coming up of ‘hull-down’ vessels
on the horizon is illustrated by several well-worded examples.”—Buffalo
Times, Dec. 28, 1885.

“The erudite author, who travels armed with plans and specifications to fire
at the skeptical at a moment’s notice, feels that he is doing a good work, and
that his hundred anti-globular conclusions must certainly knock the general
belief in territorial rotundity out of time.”…

“We trust that the distinguished author who has failed to coax Richard
Proctor into a public discussion may find as many citizens willing to invest
two shillings in his peculiar literature as he deserves.”—Buffalo Courier,
Dec. 27, 1885, and Jan. 1, 1886.

“It is a pleasure now to see a man of Mr. Carpenter’s attainments fall into
line and take up the cudgels against the theories of the scientists who have
taught this pernicious doctrine [the sphericity of the earth].”—Rochester
Morning Herald, Jan. 13, 1886.

“As the game stands now, there is ‘one horse’ for Prof. Carpenter.”—
Buffalo World, Jan. 16, 1886.

“It is interesting to show how much can be said in favor of the flat world
theory …. It is fairly well written, although, we believe filled with
misstatements of facts.”—Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Jan. 17,
1886. [We “believe” the editor cannot point one out.]

“It is certainly worth twice the price, and will be read by all with peculiar
interest.”—Scranton Truth, March 8, 1886.

“Mr. William Carpenter has come to Washington with a “hundred proofs
that the earth is not a globe.” He has a pamphlet on the subject which is
ingenious, to say the least, and he is ominously eager to discuss the matter
with any one who still clings to the absurd prejudices of the
astronomers.”—The Hatchet, May 9, 1886.

“It contains some curious problems for solution, and the author boldly
asserts that until they are solved the globular theory of the earth remains
unproven, and is fallacious, &c.”—The Presbyterian, Philadelphia, June 19,
1886.

“His reasoning is, to say the least, plausible, and the book interesting.”—
The Item, Philadelphia, June 10, 1886.

“Mr. Carpenter seems to have made a thorough investigation of the subject,
and his arguments are practical and to the point.”—Sunday Mercury,
Philadelphia, June 13, 1886.

“A gentleman has just called at the editorial rooms with a pamphlet which is
designed to demonstrate that the earth is not a globe, but a flat disk; he also
laid before us a chart from which it plainly appeared that the earth is a
circular expanse of land, with the north pole in the exact center, and the
Antarctic Sea flowing all around the land …. We went on to state that we
lodged the care of all astronomical questions in the hands of Rev. R. M.
Luther, to whom these perplexing matters are but as child’s play …. Our
readers may, therefore, expect at an early date a judicial view of the
astronomical and cosmological situation.”—National Baptist, Philadelphia,
July 8, 1886. Editor, Dr. Wayland. [We hope that the Rev. R. M. Luther will
give us the means of publishing his decision before many more editions of
the “Hundred Proofs” be issued. We are afraid that he finds the business
much more than “child’s play.”]

“‘One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,’ by William Carpenter,
is published by the author, whose novel and rather startling position is

certainly fortified by a number of argumentative points, which, if they do
not shake the reader’s preconceived notions on the subject, will, at least, be
found entertaining for the style in which they are put.”—Evening Star,
Philadelphia, July 22, 1886.

“His ‘Proofs’ go a long way towards convincing many that his ideas on the
subject are practical and sensible.”—Fashion Journal, Philadelphia, July,
1886. Editor, Mrs. F. E. Benedict.

“ ‘One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe’ is a curious little
pamphlet that we can commend to all interested in astronomy and related
sciences. It may not upset received notions on the subject, but will give
cause for much serious reflection. Published by the author, Wm. Carpenter,
Baltimore, Md. Price 25 cents.”—The Saturday Evening Post, Philadelphia,
July 31, 1886.

“Here now is an able thinker of Baltimore, Professor William Carpenter,
who presents the claims of the Zetetic philosophy to be considered the
leading issue of our times …. One of the great proofs of the truth of the
philosophy is that the regular astronomers do not dare to gainsay it …. They
are well aware there is no South pole …. Prof. Carpenter, in a treatise that
has reached us, furnishes 100 proofs that the earth is flat, and while we
cannot say that we understand all of them we appreciate the earnestness of
his appeals to the moral people of the community to rise up and overthrow
the miserable system of error that is being forced upon our children in the
public schools, vitiating the very foundations of knowledge. What issue can
be more noble or inspiring than Truth vs. Error? Here is an issue on which
there can be no trifling or compromise. In the great contest between those
who hold the earth is flat and they who contend that it is round, let the flats
assert themselves.”—Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug., 1886. [From a long article,
“The Great Zetetic Issue.”]

LETTERS TO PROFESSOR GILMAN, OF THE
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

71 Chew Street, Baltimore, September 10, 1886.

Prof. Gilman, Johns Hopkins University—Sir: On the 21st ultimo I wrote to
ask you if you received the pamphlet, which I left for you at the University
twelve months ago, entitled “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a
Globe,” and, if so, that you would kindly give me your opinion concerning
it. I write, now, to ask you if you received my letter. I am quite sure that you
will consider that the importance of the subject fully warrants the endeavor
on my part to gain the views which may be entertained by you respecting it.
The fifth edition will soon be called for, and anything you may urge—for or
against—I shall be happy to insert in the “appendix.” I send, herewith, a
copy of the fourth edition of the pamphlet.

Yours sincerely, William Carpenter.

71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 7, 1886.

Professor Gilman—Dear Sir: I am now preparing the appendix for the fifth
edition of my “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,” and I
should be glad to receive your opinion of this work to insert in the said
appendix. I can offer you from a few lines to a page, or two if necessary. Of
course, if this work as a whole be a fraud, it must be fraudulent in all its
parts; and each one of the “hundred proofs” must contain a fallacy of some
kind or other, and the thing would justify your disapprobation—expressed
in few words or many. If, on the other hand, the work is what it professes to
be, it will certainly claim your approval. Yours sincerely, W. Carpenter.

71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 14, 1886.

Prof. Gilman—Dear Sir: A week ago I wrote you a letter to tell you that I
should be glad to receive your opinion of the “Hundred Proofs that the
Earth is Not a Globe,” of which work 5,000 copies are now in circulation. I
wrote this work (26 pages) in one week, without neglecting my daily
business: surely, you can reply to it in a week from this time. I will give you
from one to four pages, if you wish that amount of space, and send you fifty
copies, if you desire to have them, without putting you to the slightest
expense. I will even take any suggestion you please to make as to the title
which shall be given to this extra edition of my work containing your reply
or opinions. I should be sorry to be under the necessity of printing this
letter, with others, in my next edition, in the place of any such reply or
expression of opinion; for I feel sure there is no one in Baltimore who is
more capable of giving an opinion on this great subject. Trusting to hear
from you in a few days, I am, Dear Sir, Yours truly,

William Carpenter.

71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 22, 1886.

Prof. Gilman—Sir: This is the fifth letter—and the last—to you, asking you
for an expression of your opinion concerning the “One Hundred Proofs that
the Earth is Not a Globe.” Which would you prefer—to see my words, or
yours, in print? I give you a week in which to decide.

Truly, William Carpenter.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, OF
BALTIMORE.
We are indebted to “Scribner’s Monthly” for the following remarks
concerning this institution:—“By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of
Baltimore, the sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a
University and a Hospital, $3,500,000 being devoted to each. This is the
largest single endowment ever made to an institution of learning in this
country. To the bequest no burdensome conditions were attached.”… “The
Physiological Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins has no peer in this country,
and the other laboratories few equals and no superiors.”

In the First Annual Report of the University (1876) we read:—“Early in the
month of February, 1874, the Trustees of the University having been
apprised by the Executors of Johns Hopkins, of the endowment provided by
his will, took proper steps for organization and entering upon the practical
duties of the trust, and addressed themselves to the selection of a President
of the University. With this view the Trustees sought the counsel and advice
of the heads of several of the leading seats of learning in the country, and,
upon unanimous recommendation and endorsement from these sources, the
choice fell upon Mr. Daniel C. Gilman, who, at the time, occupied the
position of President of the University of California.

“Mr. Gilman is a graduate of Yale College, and for several years before his
call to California, was a Professor in that institution, taking an active part in
the organization and development of ‘The Sheffield Scientific School of
Yale College,’ at New Haven. Upon receiving an invitation to Baltimore, he
resigned the office which he had held in California since 1872, and entered
upon the service of The Johns Hopkins University, May 1, 1875.”—
Galloway Cheston.

“In the hunt for truth, we are not first hunters, and then men; we are first
and always men, then hunters.”—D. C. Gilman, Oct., 1883.

The “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe” have been running
around within the observation of the master huntsman and his men for a
year or more: now let the hunters prove themselves to be men; and the men,
hunters. It is impossible to be successful hunters for Truth, if Error be
allowed to go scot-free. Nay, it is utterly impossible for the Johns Hopkins
University to answer the purpose of its founder if its hunters for Truth do
not first hunt Error with their hounds and hold it up to ridicule, and then,
and always, keep a watchful eye for the Truth lest they should injure it by
their hot haste or wound it with their weapons. Prof. Daniel C. Gilman, we
charge you that the duties of your office render it imperative that, sooner or
later, you lead your men into the field against the hundred proofs, to show
the world that they are hunters worthy of the name—if, in your superior
judgment, you decide that there is Error to be slain—or, show that your
hunters are worthy of the better name of men, by inducing them to follow
and sustain you, out of the beaten track, in your endeavors to uphold God’s
Truth, if, in your superior judgment, you tell them, “There is a Truth to be
upheld!”

[End of the Appendix to the Fifth Edition. Nov. 9, 1886.]

PROFESSOR PROCTOR’S PROOFS.
“A proof, a proof!” cries Student Brown; says Proctor, “Very well,
If that is all you want, indeed, I’ve plenty I can tell:
But really I have scarcely time, or patience, now, to do it;
You ought to know the earth’s a globe, then, as a globe you’d view it.
I knew it long ago: in truth, ’twas taught me in my cot,
And, then, too old was I to doubt—too young to say ’twas not!”
“And you have never questioned it?” “Why should I, now, friend Brown?
I took it all for granted, just as daddy laid it down.
And as my duty clearly was,—no other way I saw it—
And that’s the reason why, of course, a globe I always draw it.
And so you want a proof! Ah ha: just cross the broad Atlantic,
And then a proof so strong you’ll have, with joy ’twill send you
frantic!”
“You mean, that I shall see the ships come round the old earth’s side—
And up—and o’er the ‘watery hill’—as into view they glide!
No, Proctor, no: you say, yourself, the earth so vast in size is,
The surface seems a level one—indeed, to sight, it rises.
And ships, when coming into view, seem ‘bearing down upon us.’
No, Proctor, let us have a proof—no, no, come—mercy on us!”
“Well, Brown, I’ve proofs that serve to show that earth, indeed, a ball ‘tis;
But if you won’t believe them—well, not mine but yours the fault is.
Why, everybody, surely, knows a planet must be round,
And, since the earth a planet is, its shape at once is found.
We know it travels round the sun, a thousand miles a minute,
And, therefore, it must be a globe: a flat earth couldn’t spin it.
We know it on its axis turns with motion unperceived;
And therefore, surely, plain it is, its shape must be believed.
We know its weight put down in tons exactly as we weigh’d it;
And, therefore, what could clearer be, if we ourselves had made it?
We know its age—can figures lie?—its size—its weight—its motion;
And then to say, ‘’tis all my eye,’ shows madness in the notion.

Besides, the other worlds and suns—some cooling down—some hot!—
How can you say, you want a proof, with all these in the pot?
No, Brown: just let us go ahead; don’t interfere at all;
Some other day I’ll come and bring proof that earth’s a ball!”
“No, Proctor, no:” said Mr. Brown; “’tis now too late to try it:—
A hundred proofs are now put down (and you cannot deny it)
That earth is not a globe at all, and does not move through space:
And your philosophy I call a shame and a disgrace.
We have to interfere, and do the best that we are able
To crush your theories and to lay the facts upon the table.
God’s Truth is what the people need, and men will strive to preach it;
And all your efforts are in vain, though you should dare impeach it.
You’ve given half your theory up; the people have to know it:—
You smile, but, then, your book’s enough: for that will plainly show it.
One-half your theory’s gone, and, soon, the other half goes, too:
So, better turn about, at once, and show what you can do.
Own up (as people have to do, when they have been deceived),
And help the searcher after Truth of doubt to be relieved.
‘The only amaranthine flower is virtue;’—don’t forget it—
‘The only lasting treasure, Truth:’—and never strive to let it.”

ODDS AND ENDS.
“We do not possess a single evident proof in favor of the rotation”—of the
earth—“around its axis.”—Dr. Shœpfer.

“To prove the impossibility of the revolution of the earth around the sun,
will present no difficulty. We can bring self-evident proof to the
contrary.”—Dr. Shœpfer.

“To reform and not to chastise, I am afraid is impossible …. To attack views
in the abstract without touching persons may be safe fighting, indeed, but it
is fighting with shadows.”—Pope.

“Both revelation and science agree as to the shape of the earth. The psalmist
calls it the ‘round world,’ even when it was universally supposed to be a flat
extended plain.”—Rev. Dr. Brewer. [What a mistake!?]

“If the earth were a perfect sphere of equal density throughout, the waters
of the ocean would be absolutely level—that is to say, would have a
spherical surface everywhere equidistant from the earth’s centre.”—English
“Family Herald,” February 14, 1885.

“The more I consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I
doubt whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude
of any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ,
even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth? some affirming it
to be only three, and others ninety millions of miles.”—Rev. John Wesley,
in his “Journal.”

“I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut 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
aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast
blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin
below.”—Mr. Elliott, Baltimore.

In the “Scientific American,” for April 27, 1878, is a full report of a lecture
delivered at Berlin, by Dr. Shœpfer, headed “Our Earth Motionless,” which
concludes thus:—“The poet Goethe, whose prophetic views remained
during his life wholly unnoticed, said the following: ‘In whatever way or
manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this
modern theory of cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear in
due time some young scientist of genius who will pick up courage enough
to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. The most terrible
thing in all this is that one is obliged to repeatedly hear the assurance that
all the physicists adhere to the same opinion on this question. But one who
is acquainted with men knows how it is done: good, intellectual, and
courageous heads adorn their mind with such an idea for the sake of its
probability; they gather followers and pupils, and thus form a literary
power; their idea is finally worked out, exaggerated, and with a passionate
impulse is forced upon society; hundreds and hundreds of noble-minded,
reasonable people who work in other spheres, desiring to see their circle
esteemed and dear to the interests of daily life, can do nothing better or
more reasonable than to leave to other investigators their free scope of
action, and add their voice in the benefit of that business which does not
concern them at all. This is termed the universal corroboration of the
truthfulness of an idea!’ ”

Colophon

Availability

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org .

This eBook is produced by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
www.pgdp.net .

Metadata

One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a
Title:
Globe
Author: William Carpenter
Language: English
Original publication
1885
date:

Catalog entries

Related Library of Congress catalog page: 52055019
Related Open Library catalog page (for source): OL25597135M
Related Open Library catalog page (for work): OL17026383W

Encoding

Revision History

2017-08-10 Started.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ONE HUNDRED
PROOFS THAT THE EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other
parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may
copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including

any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE

PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition

against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.