Edward Hendrie's Defense of Flat Earth

February 13, 2016

"If the earth were a globe, none of the buildings, including the Sears Tower (now called the Willis Tower),

would be visible from 57 miles away." Earth circumference is 25,000 miles.

I wrote Edward Hendrie, author of a new 500-page flat earth book:

We live in a climate of cognitive dissonance and I don't intend to entertain any more. What exactly are you

claiming? That if we travel west or east at same latitude, we do not reach the same spot? That night and day

are not caused by earth rotation?

Here is his reply:

"Part of the glory of God and his handiwork is the fact that the earth is stationary and the sun travels in a

circuit over the earth. "

"If the earth were a globe, airliners would not be able to fly on a flat and level path. Any pilot will tell you

that once a plane gets to its cruising altitude, the pilot "levels off" and flies in a straight and level path.

Indeed, the pilot uses the horizon to ensure that the plane is flying level."

by Edward Hendrie
author of 9-11: Enemies Foreign
and Domestic; Bloody Zion;
Solving the Mystery of Babylon
the Great
(henrymakow.com)

This is the mother of all

deceptions. Without
heliocentricity, [sun-
centeredness] evolution would
never have gotten a foothold.
Heliocentricity is nothing short
of the concealment of God.

The attached picture depicts a

general portrayal of the flat
earth. North is the center of
the plane and south is the
outer rim of Antarctica. If you
travel east or west at the same
latitude you will eventually
circumnavigate the earth and
wind up at your starting point. Magellan circumnavigated the plane of the earth. Circumnavigation
does not necessitate that the earth be a globe.

In Orwell's book, 1984, O'Brien told Winston Smith: "The second thing for you to realize is that power is
power over human beings. Over the body -- but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter -- external
reality, as you would call it -- is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute."

It was at that point that O'Brien explained: "We control matter because we control the mind."

The elite do not have the power to make the earth spin at approximately 1,000 miles per hour at the equator,
while at the same time revolving around the sun at approximately 67,000 miles per hour. All they need to do
is convince the population of the world that is what happens. That is what O'Brien meant when he stated that
"we control matter because we control the mind."

By controlling the mind as to the basic nature of our world, they can control everything else we think and do.
In Psalms 19:1 it states that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork.
Part of the glory of God and his handiwork is the fact that the earth is stationary and the sun travels in a
circuit over the earth.

God's creation of heaven and earth is part and parcel of his creative powers each day when he forms each
person in the womb. If people lose sight of God as creator of all things, then any sin, including abortion can
be justified. It is important for people to understand the nature of God's creation, because it reveals his
character. In Isaiah 44:24 God states that he alone stretched forth the heavens and spread abroad the earth. A
ball is not spread out. You spread out things that are flat, like a flat bed spread. God spread out the earth and
he stretched forth the heavens above the earth.

"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all
things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself." (Isaiah 44:24)

Modern science has replaced God's abode of heaven with the myth of the empty vacuum of space, thus
suggesting that there is no heaven and there is no God. If there is only an empty vacuum of space, that means
that God cannot be above us walking in the circuit of heaven. "Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he
seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven." (Job 22:14)
 Night and day are not caused by

the rotation of a spherical earth.

Night and day are caused by the

travel of the sun in circuit over

the flat earth. The sun is much

smaller than the earth, as

depicted in the attached picture. It is close to and directly over the earth; it is not 93 million miles away.

Here is Hendrie's full rebuttal to the article by L.C. Vincent Friday.

Arthur Schopenauer famously said that "all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." The truth of the flat earth is now in the
ridicule stage. Vincent characterizes belief in a flat, stationary earth as vacuous "lunacy," "primitive
stupidity," and a "pernicious and preposterous meme." He is apparently one of the ridiculers.

I once believed in a spinning, globular earth, just as Vincent does now. However, I thoroughly studied the
evidence. I invite him to do the same. The evidence drew me to the ineluctable conclusion that the earth is a
not a moving globe.

GRAVITY

My book presents irrefutable proof that the earth is flat and

immovable. The answer to what causes objects to fall to the
ground in the absence of gravity is density. People and
objects are heavier than the air and therefore do not float off
the ground. There are some gasses, of course, that are lighter
than air, and they float off the ground. Everyone has seen
helium balloons float up in the air. Everyone understands that helium balloons are not some sort of anti-
gravity devices; they float up in the air, because helium is lighter than air. Why do people not understand that
apples fall from trees to the ground, not because of gravity, but because apples are denser than air? They
believe in the mystical force of gravity, not because it has been proven true, but because they have been
brainwashed into believing in it. Gravity does not exist.
Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was conjured up out of necessity. A theory was needed to explain how
things could stick to a spinning, spherical earth and not fly off due the centrifugal force from the spinning
globe. Aren't you the least bit curious why the supposed force of gravity has never been measured or
replicated in any way in any experiment? The gravitational theory requires that gravitational attraction to the
earth by all persons and objects remains the same at all places on the earth. That means that the gravitational
force at the North Pole is the same as the gravitational force at the equator. That poses a very real problem if
the earth is spinning as alleged. That is because the centrifugal force decreases every mile toward the north
pole, where the centrifugal force is ultimately reduced to zero, because the North Pole is the axis of the
supposedly spinning earth.

On a globe, as you travel north or south of the equator the circumference parallel to the equator becomes
less. Consequently, the speed of the earth's spin at those more northern and southern latitudes from the
equator would be slower than its speed of spin at the equator. For example, at the 45 degree north latitude,
the earth's spin should be approximately 700 miles per hour. One hundred feet from the North Pole, the
earth's spin should be reduced to one quarter mile per hour (1,308 feet per hour).

(Ed Hendrie, left)

As the speed of the
spin is reduced, so also
is the correlative
centrifugal force.
What is the amount of
decrease of the
centrifugal force
between the equator to
one hundred feet of the
North Pole? There
would be a 4,000 fold
reduction (1,000 MPH
vs. ¼ MPH) in
centrifugal force from
the equator to a point
one hundred feet of the
North Pole. That means, assuming (as is required by the theory of gravity) that the force of gravity remains
constant over the entire surface of the earth, a 175 pound man at the equator would weigh 700,000 pounds if
he traveled to within 100 feet of the North Pole. Assuming the earth is spinning, the decrease in the
centrifugal force as one approaches the North Pole, means that a person would be crushed by the force of
gravity, before he ever reached the North Pole. The spinning earth and the mystical force of gravity are thus
proven to be preposterous fictions.

Vincent's argument that those adhering to the flat earth believe that "moons and stars are illusions or flat
spinning discs created by aliens" is simply false. The only flat earther who would make such a claim would
have to be a government shill planted to discredit evidence of the flat earth. Indeed, his statement is the first
time I have ever heard such a claim.

The evidence of a flat earth is everywhere to be seen. For example, in the photograph the Chicago skyline
can be seen clearly. The picture was taken by Joshua Nowicki as he stood at Grand Mere Park, Michigan,
which is approximately 57 miles away, across lake Michigan from Chicago.

If the earth were a globe, none of the buildings, including the Sears Tower (now called the Willis Tower),
would be visible. They would all be below the horizon. The top of the Sears Tower would be 194 feet below
the horizon. The only thing that would be visible in the entire Chicago skyline would be the uppermost 85
feet of the antennae on the top of the Sears Tower. In fact, however, the entire Sears Tower and all of the
other buildings along the shore in Chicago can be seen in the Nowicki photograph. That picture by Joshua
Nowicki of the Chicago skyline proves that the earth is flat.

AIRPLANES

If the earth were a globe,

airliners would not be able to
fly on a flat and level path. Any
pilot will tell you that once a
plane gets to its cruising
altitude, the pilot "levels off"
and flies in a straight and level
path. Indeed, the pilot uses the
horizon to ensure that the plane
is flying level. When visibility
is poor, the pilot will use the
instruments and fly a level
heading, using an artificial
horizon. Either way, at all times
the plane flies level, once the
pilot reaches cruising altitude.
If the earth were a globe, the
pilot would have to constantly
adjust the heading of the plane
and dip its nose down to keep a
constant altitude. However, the earth is in fact flat, so if a pilot dipped the nose of the plane down, to adjust
for the supposed curvature of the earth, he would find that he is losing altitude. If the pilot kept on that
downward trajectory, the plane would crash into the earth. The fact that no such downward adjustment is
made by pilots for the supposed curvature of the earth is proof that the earth is flat. Indeed, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) assumes a flat earth when training pilots and air traffic controllers using their
Target Generation Facility (TGF).
My book addresses evidence and presents a multiplicity of proofs that the earth is stationary and flat. My
hope is that you decide to leave the tranquility of disinformation, and endeavor to study the evidence. An
honest man who is shown to be wrong must either admit his error or cease to be honest. Are you an honest
man?

--
Related-
Bible Flat Earthers Seems to Have Influenced Hendrie

--
ANTHONY MIGCHELS WADES IN:

I've been following your posts about the FET with a keen eye and was wondering whether I should

respond or not. I was actually hoping someone would, but they don't and when you claim 'Anthony Migchels

has succumbed', then I MUST respond.

(Predicted to discredit Conservatives in Illuminati card

game in 1995)

I have not 'succumbed'. And I do agree FET is a

psyop.However, it is also a very important phenomenon,

which blows a whole lot of stuff we take for granted out

of the water.
All good disinformation is 90% correct, and this is the case with the FET too. They have exposed a number

of facts of absolutely fundamental importance. I have investigated the issue thoroughly and have facilitated a

lot of debate on Facebook on the issue. This was not easy: most people simply can't handle the idea of the

Ball Earth being wrong, or they become FET fundamentalists over night. It's a very polarized debate. But it

has been very instructive.

To give you an idea:

- They have exposed NASA as an utter hoax. It goes way beyond the hoaxed Moon landings. As it stands

now, I highly doubt that they can launch anything into 'space'. Most likely (until other evidence becomes

available) I'm assuming telecommunications is run through land based antennae, which gained a global reach

in the early fifties, when the first presumed 'telecom satellites' were launched.

- We have NO picture of the Globe Earth. The famous Apollo picture is one of the few of which NASA itself

claims it's a 'real' photograph. All other pics they feed us, they admit themselves are Computer Generated

Images. And the famous Apollo picture has been PROVEN to be a fraud: there is footage available of the

astronauts faking the pic by photographing the Earth from high altitude through a round window of the

airplane (and not 'space ship').

- Because there is no NASA, there is also no real proof of Heliocentrism. Geocentrism is very much back at

the center of Astronomy, for those who realize what the implications of the FET are. Copernicus, Newton,
Galileo, they were all highly connected individuals, who could offer absolutely no proof for Heliocentrism,

but who were promoted incessantly by the Hidden Hand.

- The key criticism of the FET towards the Globe Earth is really eminent in its simplicity: we simply cannot

see curvature of the Earth.

There is footage of dozens of amateur weather balloons up there, and they all show a flat horizon from 30km

height. Curvature plays no role whatsoever in architecture and engineering, which it definitely should.

The idea that the Earth is to big to make curvature noticeable in daily practice is nonsense. Curvature should

be omnipresent. It should be easily provable, and it isn't.

(left, Migchels)

So why claim the FET is a hoax?

Because their own positions aimed at positively

proving the Flat Earth don't add up. They are

right about the lack of curvature, but

unfortunately their positions concerning the

Sun's movement are incorrect. For instance: they

claim the Sun simply disappears on the horizon because of the limits of our eyesight, but daily practice
shows that the Sun disappears behind the horizon while its full size is visible. It's not becoming smaller as it

sets, while the FET claims the Sun is simply moving away from us.

FET is also unable to explain many astronomical events. Furthermore, I agree the FET has been launched in

an absolutely typical manner, trying to suggest a grassroots movement, but in actuality undoubtedly from

higher up.

I also STRONGLY disagree with the FET's idea that the Globe Earth and Heliocentrism is the lie of lies. No,

people don't get up in the morning because they were lied to about the shape of the Earth.

They get up to wage slave away, to pay off the Bank. The REAL basic lie of our existence, is that we are

'free', while we are total slaves to the Banking Cartel through its Usury. Knowing the scientific facts

concerning astronomy (for as far as they are known, if anything, the FET raises a whole lot of questions)

does not alter the human condition, while printing some interest-free credit for normal people ends slavery

and the New World Order.

And the FET distracts from this. So there it is: a balanced appraisal of the pros and cons of an important

phenomenon!
Einstein's Relativity Proves The Earth is Flat
May 23, 2016 JohnDavis
In this article we show how ridiculous the globe truly is by demonstrating how it in actuality
describes a flat earth.

Newton’s Laws of Motion

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an
external force is applied to it.
2. The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the
magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional
to the mass of the object. F=ma
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Einstein’s Equivalence Principle

Einstein was fond of a form of inquiry known as thought experiments. In a thought experiment, a
premise is assumed to deduct from it the possible consequences. One of these thoughts experiments
in particular involved a solitary passenger on an elevator that is alone in the universe.
When the elevator starts accelerating upwards, a pull downwards is felt by the passenger. This is
due to the passengers inertia. Recall that a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Einstein hypothesised
that since this pull, caused by the momentum of the passenger fighting against his acceleration, is
indistinguishable from gravitational influences, it is only logical to assume that they are one and the
same phenomenon. Comparatively, another pseudo-force like this arises from a rotating reference
frame, say if one is on a spinning carnival ride one would presumably feel a pull away from the
center.
Consider the scenario of this elevator accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s/s . If the passenger were to
jump in the elevator while it was accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s/s (the rate at which we are pulled
to the earth by gravitational forces) he would observe the same effect as if he was jumping on the
earth. An initial resistance would be felt; the ground, or elevator floor, would recede away from him
at 9.81m/s/s until he has traveled enough distance to expend the force given by jumping. Then the
elevator floor would rise up to meet him at 9.81m/s/s . This can be seen as an observational illusion:
the elevator floor can be seen to either be accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s or the passenger could
be seen as falling towards the floor. To the passenger - its indistinguishable! Einstein’s inductive
leap here was the realization that perhaps the forces are indistinguishable because they are. They
both are accelerating frames of reference. The idea that gravitation is a pseudo-force arising from a
naive view (which is to say taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one) is known as
the equivalence principle.
In short, gravitational pull then is shown as an observational illusion hinging on our naive view of
our frame of reference being inertial. Gravity is actually revealed as an inertial force (also known as
a fictitious force).
A Flat Earth Theory
First let us construct a Wish List, so that we can be sure to be fair when we claim we’ve shown
sufficient proof for our model. A simple list of things we would like to say are true if we have
indeed shown a model that says the earth is flat.

Our Flat Earth Theory Wishlist:

 We would like it to be coherent with our previous interpretation or show it as an
approximation
 Results from a shift in our shift in the observational language, which is to say we are just
“looking at it wrong” and this can be disillusioned, much like the Einstein’s Equivalence
principle or Galileo’s inertia.
 Show the Earth is Flat
 Based on and coherent with known laws and facts

What do we mean when we say the Earth is flat?

Let us remove an obvious point of confusion and simply state that we talk about flat in a broad
manner - we are not discussing mountains or valleys here. In similar fashion, we are not making the
ludicrous claim that the Earth is two dimensional. What we do say is that it can be transversed via a
straight line through space. We would also like to say that all such traversals are straight or can be
seen as straight. It can be said to satisfy this if it can be shown to be parallel to another straight line
in space along all such traversals.

The Ferrari Effect

Let us build first from the base of Newton.

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional
round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in
motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels
no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is
experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein
disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.
Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies
on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since
by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal
with description of it.
We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us
to. The issue is with our naive view of geometry and space. Likewise we take the view that it is
indeed in motion and not still.
Let’s interpret the ramifications of the statement: an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus
flat), line through space through further thought experiment. First, we can define our field of
interest in that taking all such theoretical orbits of our planet and realize them rightly as flat, thus
defining the bounding space of interest also to be flat. It follows, given any orbit of this planet to be
flat, the planet itself is flat since it satisfies our definition of flatness.
Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of
our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we
can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the
earth, its geolocation. We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are
normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel. Since the orbit is straight, and the orbit relates
directly to the geographical locations it is above, we have come a long way to show the planet is
also flat.

Now let us consider what acceleration means. Acceleration by its nature means either a change in
speed or direction, which is to say a change in velocity. So when we look at the parabola formed by
a ball in motion we can recognize that it is for the most part accelerating - it changes both direction
and speed. Now, let us examine the path if we remove the influence of gravity from our model as
well as unbound the start and end points to allow it to move freely.
If gravity was not forcing the object downwards, it would then be travelling a straight path, parallel
perhaps to our imaginary satellite and in this case tangent to the apex of our balls climb.
We can see by comparison between a theoretical object in orbit and our ball at the apex of its climb
that if not affected by gravity it would travel a straight line. By repeating this experiment again and
again with lower apexes of our ball, various orientations, and so on we see the earth itself, not just
the paths of satellites, is flat.

The effect of viewing the earth and it appearing round is known as the Ferrari Effect, based off of
former Canadian Flat Earth Society President Leo Ferrari who first predicted this. While not a true
flatist, he was a free-thinker and his unique way of thinking helped us realize this. This describes
that effect.
Any honest judge will begrudgingly have to admit that I have shown that the flat earth theory
directly follows from our laws of motion and coherence with relativity. Even worse is the
realization that we would have been lead to relativity sooner if not for our strict faith-like belief in a
round earth.
J Davis, American Flat Earth Society President