Sailboat masts.

  • 48 Replies
  • 6394 Views
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Sailboat masts.
« on: August 22, 2011, 06:04:16 PM »
There's often talk of sailboats masts appearing over the horizon, but never any pictures. So, I took my binoculars and a camera, and shot these two photos of the same sailboat through the binoculars. One picture was from about 5 feet above the water, and the other was higher, ~20 feet above the water. I took the shots within 2 minutes of each other. After I took the second shot, I looked through the binoculars 30 seconds later at 5 feet and saw the same thing as in the first picture. I.e. the boat didn't move significantly.

One of the pictures is out of focus, yes, but I was in a hurry to get it before the boat disappeared behind an island.
The difference in brightness and zoom between the two photos is due to how the pictures were taken (zoom on camera, and auto brightness/through binoculars.)

5 feet:

20 feet:


note the lack of a hull in the first photo.

now, this is expected on the round earth, but on a flat earth, we should be able to see to hull of the boat in both pictures or in neither picture. (neither if you ascribe to Tom's funky perspective, both oterwise.)

And no, the waves were not high that day, less than a foot.

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2011, 06:24:14 PM »
Nah bro, it's flat.

All will be revealed in this helpful wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zetetic_Astronomy

Those scientist have it all wrong. Looks like the Catholic Church was right after all...

?

Thork

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2011, 10:38:30 AM »
I looked through the binoculars 30 seconds later at 5 feet and saw the same thing as in the first picture. I.e. the boat didn't move significantly.
Why didn't you take a 3rd picture? Why must we accept your account with no proof?

One of the pictures is out of focus, yes, but I was in a hurry to get it before the boat disappeared behind an island.
So the boat was moving fast enough to disappear behind an island quickly, but not fast enough to get closer to you? Convenient.

Please also tell me where any FEr has claimed being higher won't allow you to see further? This is a strawman. You are attributing RE qualities to a situation not dependant on them.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1218243#msg1218243

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2011, 11:23:17 AM »
I looked through the binoculars 30 seconds later at 5 feet and saw the same thing as in the first picture. I.e. the boat didn't move significantly.
Why didn't you take a 3rd picture? Why must we accept your account with no proof?
Why must you doubt everything? If he didn't take a picture, fine, he didn't take a picture.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2011, 11:26:36 AM »
It is not Zetetic just to accept garden-gate gossip. Hard facts are what makes FET so strong.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2011, 11:29:36 AM »
It is not Zetetic just to accept garden-gate gossip.
The "gossip" is mostly irrelevant anyway.
If he didn't take a picture, fine, he didn't take a picture.


Hard facts are what makes FET so strong.
::)
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2011, 01:42:30 PM »
Hard facts are what makes FET so strong.
<Rolling On the Floor Laughing>
  Facts!!!
  <Rolling On the Floor Laughing Even More>
    Hard!!! :D ::) ;D
  </ROFLEM>
</ROFL>
Here are some hard facts: There is nothing extraordinary in the photos displayed by the OP. This is an observation made thousands of times since before Columbus. Extraordinary evidence would be needed if the photos showed something unusual. In fact, they are not even the first set of photos posted in this forum. We can accept the word of the poster when he just shows the evidence he gathered.

On the other hand, you have not shown evidence to the contrary. You cry wolf instead of accepting the facts shown to you. How convenient.


?

Thork

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2011, 01:54:41 PM »
Here you are trying to pull apart an experiment in a book which has made publication, with facile nit-picking.
Why would flat earth need such rigorous examination, yet round earth is just accepted? Its this sloppy and double-standard science that has let RET creep in as mainstream. I reserve my right to question the evidence. It ensures I don't end up looking ridiculous like you round earthers.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2011, 02:26:26 PM »
I looked through the binoculars 30 seconds later at 5 feet and saw the same thing as in the first picture. I.e. the boat didn't move significantly.
Why didn't you take a 3rd picture? Why must we accept your account with no proof?

One of the pictures is out of focus, yes, but I was in a hurry to get it before the boat disappeared behind an island.
So the boat was moving fast enough to disappear behind an island quickly, but not fast enough to get closer to you? Convenient.

Please also tell me where any FEr has claimed being higher won't allow you to see further? This is a strawman. You are attributing RE qualities to a situation not dependant on them.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1218243#msg1218243

I believe me because that is what I saw. I've seen in many times, without taking a picture. Thus, I personally have zetetic evidence for a round earth. You should believe me or call me part of the conspiracy.

Anyways, the third picture isn't needed. Look at the second photo. The hull of the ship is about a sixth of the height of the boat. Thus, on a flat earth, both photos should have the hull be one sixth of the way up the boat. However, the first one does not. This is clearly not a matter of perspective. I have enough zoom to "recover" the hull in the first picture, yet it is not visible.

The air is not filled with particles obscuring the hull, because we can see the mast all the way down to the water. Again, the waves were less than a foot high, and so would not cover the hull.

Still not convinced?

Look only at the first photo. You can see that the mast has thickness. A mast is usually under a foot thick. However, the hull of the boat rises much higher in the water than a foot, likely around five feet. To claim that you can see something less than a foot thick, but cannot see something that is five or more feet thick from the same distance is a strong fallacy of logic.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2011, 04:45:13 PM »

Anyways, the third picture isn't needed. Look at the second photo. The hull of the ship is about a sixth of the height of the boat. Thus, on a flat earth, both photos should have the hull be one sixth of the way up the boat. However, the first one does not. This is clearly not a matter of perspective. I have enough zoom to "recover" the hull in the first picture, yet it is not visible.

The air is not filled with particles obscuring the hull, because we can see the mast all the way down to the water. Again, the waves were less than a foot high, and so would not cover the hull.

Still not convinced?

Look only at the first photo. You can see that the mast has thickness. A mast is usually under a foot thick. However, the hull of the boat rises much higher in the water than a foot, likely around five feet. To claim that you can see something less than a foot thick, but cannot see something that is five or more feet thick from the same distance is a strong fallacy of logic.
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily. Plus, it is a graphic evidence of something that has been seen by thousands or millions for centuries.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12224
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2011, 04:52:19 PM »
Changing the level from which you take the picture by 5 metres will, indeed, make you see more. This is in no way contradictory with FET.
Could you provide us with your camera's distance from the boat? It's rather crucial.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2011, 07:20:26 PM »
Changing the level from which you take the picture by 5 metres will, indeed, make you see more. This is in no way contradictory with FET.
Could you provide us with your camera's distance from the boat? It's rather crucial.
Explain, or better yet, make a diagram.

In reality, being able to see more of the boat when looking from higher above is exactly what the formulas that have been endlessly posted in this forum predicts. And no diagram, formula or explanation has adequately explained the same for FE, except for bendy light, which has more than enough problems of its own.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2011, 07:34:36 PM »
Could you provide us with your camera's distance from the boat? It's rather crucial.
No, it is not crucial unless you come up with a good alternative model which predicts the same observed results in a flat Earth.

On the other hand, it would be rather simple to estimate the distance to that boat with real life models and real life assumptions, using the formulas we all know and estimating that the part of the boat that is hidden is about 3 meters high. It would be a very rough estimation, but still, it would be rather easy.

The real reason for this question is not because you want the answer, it is because you see a rhetorical way out of this uncomfortable place you placed yourself in.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2011, 07:47:16 PM »
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily.

Only because you both persist in believing the faulty, theoretical "law of perspective" taught in art schools,; all parallel lines do not meet at the same point of the eye line as Rowbotham clearly demonstrated.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39572
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2011, 08:41:05 PM »
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily.

Only because you both persist in believing the faulty, theoretical "law of perspective" taught in art schools,; all parallel lines do not meet at the same point of the eye line as Rowbotham clearly demonstrated.

Art school perspective assumes a flat earth with a vanishing point infinitely far away.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2011, 09:21:19 PM »
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily.

Only because you both persist in believing the faulty, theoretical "law of perspective" taught in art schools,; all parallel lines do not meet at the same point of the eye line as Rowbotham clearly demonstrated.

False. Rowbotham was just trying to account for the sailboat masts.
For example, he uses the following diagram.

Notice how he draws the bottom disappearing, but not the (larger) top. The angular diameter of both the top and bottom is roughly the same at far distances, so they should be equally shrunken, yet they are not in the diagram.

Similarly in
,
The girls head should be as invisible as her feet.

Similar discrepancies between the top and bottom of:




Since nothing is blocking the bottom of these pictures, their bottoms should be as visible as their tops, especially clear when viewed through binoculars.

Need more?

Think of looking at an airplane through binoculars. The ends of the wings or tail or nose are never "cut off", no matter the angle of viewing, because there is nothing between the plane and you. Similar distances are involved. The boat I saw must have been less than 7 miles from me, and commercial planes fly at over 6 miles high, and are often farther than that from you due to land distance between you and the plane.

By the same logic, you should be able to see the hull of the ship from any angle if there were nothing between you and the part of the boat you are looking at.

However, my photos clearly demonstrate that the large hull of the ship is invisible, even though you can see the thin mast all the way down to the water. Therefore, something must have been between me and the boat, which is water. This is zetetically observable.

Since I viewed the boat from five feet above the water, and the ship's hull rises at least five feet out of the water, the water between me and the boat must be convex. Similarly, when the same phenomena is viewed anywhere else, the water is convex. Since this is visible all across the earth, the earth as a whole must be convex, a globe.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 09:30:24 PM by momentia »

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2011, 03:05:34 AM »

Anyways, the third picture isn't needed. Look at the second photo. The hull of the ship is about a sixth of the height of the boat. Thus, on a flat earth, both photos should have the hull be one sixth of the way up the boat. However, the first one does not. This is clearly not a matter of perspective. I have enough zoom to "recover" the hull in the first picture, yet it is not visible.

The air is not filled with particles obscuring the hull, because we can see the mast all the way down to the water. Again, the waves were less than a foot high, and so would not cover the hull.

Still not convinced?

Look only at the first photo. You can see that the mast has thickness. A mast is usually under a foot thick. However, the hull of the boat rises much higher in the water than a foot, likely around five feet. To claim that you can see something less than a foot thick, but cannot see something that is five or more feet thick from the same distance is a strong fallacy of logic.
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily. Plus, it is a graphic evidence of something that has been seen by thousands or millions for centuries.

Like......

Um...sorry...been missing facebook since I joined this forum....I probably should give it a rest.....
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2011, 03:26:07 AM »
I feel kind of silly because I did not see that the photo of the mast is enough, but now I see it clearly. The photo is really difficult to fake, you are telling us where it came from, and it debunks the "perspective" argument from Rowbotham easily.

Only because you both persist in believing the faulty, theoretical "law of perspective" taught in art schools,; all parallel lines do not meet at the same point of the eye line as Rowbotham clearly demonstrated.
You have it the wrong way around: not only do we not  believe in Rowbotham's idiocy about perspective, momentia demonstrated the idiocy of Rowbotham with his photos. This evidence totally demolishes Rowbotham's use of the "law of perspective". This law of perspective is a drawing technique, not a physical phenomenon or an optical effect or anything else. It just gives the architects a simple way to draw buildings with "three dimensional" look without the mathematics to draw the buildings exactly like they would be seen in reality.

If Rowbotham's idea were true you would see the hull of the boat but not the masts at the distance of this boat.

PS.
 and momentia has just shown how Rowbotham did not even apply the drawing technique correctly. A good architect would have painted the water fading into the same vanishing point as everything else. In fact, a good architect would have placed the vanishing point at the level that the observer sees as the horizon, not under it. Rowbotham would have flunked technical drawing class if he had shown his diagrams there.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 03:37:49 AM by trig »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2011, 05:53:58 PM »
Notice how he draws the bottom disappearing, but not the (larger) top. The angular diameter of both the top and bottom is roughly the same at far distances, so they should be equally shrunken, yet they are not in the diagram.

And he very clearly states that this is so because the lines do not converge at the same rate. Your inability to comprehend the material before you is your short coming, not Rowbotham's.

Quote
However, my photos clearly demonstrate that the large hull of the ship is invisible, even though you can see the thin mast all the way down to the water. Therefore, something must have been between me and the boat, which is water. This is zetetically observable.
And yet use of a telescope will restore the hull. This, too, is "zetetically observable."  This would be in no way possible if there were a hill of water between the observer and the hull.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2011, 06:25:01 PM »
I looked through the binoculars 30 seconds later at 5 feet and saw the same thing as in the first picture. I.e. the boat didn't move significantly.
Why didn't you take a 3rd picture? Why must we accept your account with no proof?

One of the pictures is out of focus, yes, but I was in a hurry to get it before the boat disappeared behind an island.
So the boat was moving fast enough to disappear behind an island quickly, but not fast enough to get closer to you? Convenient.

Please also tell me where any FEr has claimed being higher won't allow you to see further? This is a strawman. You are attributing RE qualities to a situation not dependant on them.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1218243#msg1218243
It doesn't look like it would go to fast to me with no jib and the water doesn't appear to look too windy.
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2011, 06:35:23 PM »
There is a conclusive explanation.

If we are in an Orlando-Ferguson flat earth model (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50237.0) then some of the horizon events will be explained.

The fact the flat earth may be slighlty curved from above is to be studied.
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2011, 07:02:18 PM »
Notice how he draws the bottom disappearing, but not the (larger) top. The angular diameter of both the top and bottom is roughly the same at far distances, so they should be equally shrunken, yet they are not in the diagram.

And he very clearly states that this is so because the lines do not converge at the same rate. Your inability to comprehend the material before you is your short coming, not Rowbotham's.

Quote
However, my photos clearly demonstrate that the large hull of the ship is invisible, even though you can see the thin mast all the way down to the water. Therefore, something must have been between me and the boat, which is water. This is zetetically observable.
And yet use of a telescope will restore the hull. This, too, is "zetetically observable."  This would be in no way possible if there were a hill of water between the observer and the hull.

That was through binoculars, and no amount of magnification will restore the hull.
Again, the thin mast is visible, but the thick hull is not, even thought the angular diameter of the hull is larger than the angular diameter of the mast. This is basic geometry. If there were nothing obscuring the hull, then I would've seen it.

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2011, 07:53:49 PM »
Basic principles of geometries explain that, if the earth were a sphere, the phenomenon you describe would only be explainable in a multi-redundant cycloid shape of the ocean, which would lead to a fundamental incoherence.

What you explain is the basic reverberation of the light on the horizon's atmosphere, which is also known as 'mirage' and happen at any temperature in the sea/oceans.
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2011, 08:40:18 PM »
Basic principles of geometries explain that, if the earth were a sphere, the phenomenon you describe would only be explainable in a multi-redundant cycloid shape of the ocean, which would lead to a fundamental incoherence.

What you explain is the basic reverberation of the light on the horizon's atmosphere, which is also known as 'mirage' and happen at any temperature in the sea/oceans.
Yes but you forget the lorentz euclidian transformations that demonstrate how cycloidal forms are automatically corrected for by curvature of space-time.  If the Earth was flat, then the hull would appear to hover ABOVE the line of the horizon.   True story....
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2011, 09:02:03 PM »
Problem is that your transformation equations related to the earth were established thinking that the earth was a sphere, and succeed in the RET but not in FET.

That's why you have to take them cautiously.

It may sound hard to believe, but without the electronic equipment to correct the issues of the RET (thanks to relocalization) the predictions of the RET, with a sextan, but without stars in the sky, would lead the boats right outside the earth, and not to their proper destination.

Thanks to the astronomical predictions of the early flat earthers, and their long-lasting night calendars, this rarely happened (think about the Triangle of Bermuda...).
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2011, 10:11:55 AM »
which is also known as 'mirage' and happen at any temperature in the sea/oceans.
For a man who talks about multi-redundant cycloid shapes, your knowledge of mirages is intriguingly absent.

Maybe you chose those exact words ("at any temperature") because of a lack of knowledge, but I think you deliberately decided to post a half truth. It is not one temperature what causes mirages, no matter which temperature, It is a temperature gradient. When the temperature ot the air some meters above the surface is higher than the temperature of the water or soil a distortion occurs, but it is not a clean, neat distortion that hides some objects. It is an effect of multiple prisms making some objects disappear, some dark lines appear where those objects should have been seen, some objects are amplified in the vertical direction and some are reduced, while the horizontal sizes remain largely intact.

You would have to have intelligent air for your theory to work: air that knows where the boat will be and where the observer will be, so that only the boat's image will be changed, while the water's image remains. And you should have the same temperature gradient in the air all day and all night long, since boat have been seen "sinking" into the ocean under all conditions, not just close to midday, when the temperature gradient is possibly best for mirages.

It this were the case, the photo where only the mast is seen would have clear traces of mirages, most importantly dark or evenly-colored horizontal lines.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2011, 10:16:33 AM »
There is a conclusive explanation.

If we are in an Orlando-Ferguson flat earth model (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50237.0) then some of the horizon events will be explained.

The fact the flat earth may be slighlty curved from above is to be studied.
You are absolutely right. The Earth is just slightly curved. So slightly that it takes some 10 kilometers to be curved about one meter, and 10000 kilometers to curve 90 degrees.

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2011, 11:13:46 AM »
The obvious demonstration that the earth is flat and what you see is an illusion has been given here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

and here

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

So far, the results of the experiments resisted any round earther explanation. There is no need for us to believe in a Round Earth.

Also, if you try by yourself, you will see that the earth is flat. Did you experiment?
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2011, 01:33:55 PM »
Also, if you try by yourself, you will see that the earth is flat. Did you experiment?

Yes, turns out that the earth is round.
And yes, Rowbatham's perspective is only bendy light under a different name.
Somehow, it did not affect his experiments, but affects any other experiments, like my own, and Wallace's experiments.

So, assuming a flat earth and light traveling in straight lines, Rowbatham's "perspective" is obviously false, incontrovertibly.

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sailboat masts.
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2011, 01:37:59 PM »
You are absolutely right. The Earth is just slightly curved. So slightly that it takes some 10 kilometers to be curved about one meter, and 10000 kilometers to curve 90 degrees.

If what you say is correct, then you proved that the Round Earth theory is incorrect.

Indeed, an experiment ran over a 20 miles radius, showed that the curvature did not happen as the flag observed at that distance was perfectly visible. If the earth were curved, it would have been partly hidden.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman