The Pictures Which Should Not Be

Originally posted at Dispatches from Reality, by Scipio Eruditus. dfreality.substack.com

31 miles, 28 miles, 27 miles: no measurable curve……

“What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models.

A lot of cosmology tries to HIDE that.”

— George F. R. Ellis, Physicist

Related Entries

BC: Biblical Cosmology

The Alien Agenda, Part I

Interview w/ Josh Monday of the Christian & Conspiracy Podcast

The concept of a spherical Earth was first postulated by the self-proclaimed (and some say mythical) prophet Pythagoras, later emerging from the chambers of the Platonic and Mystery schools. It was not any experimentation or empirical evidence which drove this novel belief, but rather it was a direct manifestation of a religious obsession with the alleged perfection of the sphere. These schools were steeped in esoteric Babylonian rituals and mystical Egyptian beliefs, elevating the sphere to a divine pedestal, weaving it into their cosmological fabric as a symbol of celestial order and heavenly symmetry.

It was this Aristotelian belief which led Eratosthenes to conduct what is often hailed as the first experiment proving the sphericity of the Earth. Take ABC’s article on this experiment for instance:

About 2,250 years ago, there was a man called Eratosthenes.

He was one of those ancient Greeks who changed the world.

He was a polymath, someone with expert knowledge of a range of topics.

A mathematician, geographer, astronomer, philosopher, poet, and music theorist.

He’s famous for being the first person known to have measured the earth’s circumference…

The circumference of the earth was 40,000 kilometres, according to Eratosthenes’ calculations.

Was he correct?

He was incredibly close.

— This measurement is more than 2,200 years old, and its accuracy is remarkable

This is quite literally a fairytale fabricated after the fact in order to lend credence to the globe theory.

Upon closer examination of the reported numbers, the historical record reveals glaring deficiencies in Eratosthenes’ methodology and conclusions. The celebrated calculation of the Earth’s circumference, based on the variance of shadow lengths in Syene and Alexandria, stands on shaky ground. Firstly, there are no contemporary records of this experiment, with the earliest records of the event being written hundreds of years later by notoriously unreliable sources. Crucially, Eratosthenes’ estimation of the distances between Syene and Alexandria, a vital parameter in these calculations, is marred by uncertainty. The Greek stadion is a measurement which remains uncertain in the modern age, assumed to measure anywhere from 150 to 210 meters; and that’s before we consider this distance between these two cities, some 500 miles, was likely measured by counting the footsteps between them.

Eratosthenes concluded from his measurements that the Earth’s circumference was roughly 250,000 stadia: anywhere from ~23,300 miles to ~32,600 miles. He also calculated that the Sun’s distance was 3 million miles from Earth; which, when compared to the modern consensus of 93 million miles (an equally dubious figure), casts further doubt on the accuracy of his measurements. Obviously, those numbers significantly deviate from the currently accepted circumference value of Earth (24,901 miles) relying entirely upon a subjective choice of the stadia length in order to make these calculations appear accurate. Such a colossal discrepancy in this supposedly foundational dataset, particularly as we are in the dark to the true measurements used, fatally undermines the reliability of Eratosthenes “discovery”.

Furthermore, Eratosthenes’ entire methodology rests on a faulty foundation. He only conducted two measurements: even within the mainstream paradigm, this fails to fulfill the basic requirement of three points to establish the geometric nature of a shape such as a sphere. This oversight of course leaves his conclusions susceptible to the errors we have seen, rendering his claims (or speculations really) about the Earth’s spherical nature tenuous — at best. In light of these shortcomings, Eratosthenes’ celebrated achievement must be viewed with a serious dose of skepticism. While his influence on the ancients is indeed undeniable, his supposed discovery of the globe falls exceedingly short under critical scrutiny, revealing more about the limitations of our knowledge than the actual nature of our planet.

Now if the Earth is indeed a sphere, as the Grecian Mystery initiates first posited, it should adhere to certain physical properties which can be empirically measured and quantified.

“²¹ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

— First Epistle to the Thessalonians 5:21 KJV

Before we discuss my team’s latest findings, let us first re-establish some basic principles of both the globe theory and the propagation of light, as well as our previous findings over Tampa Bay:

Editor’s Note: The following section is excerpted from a previous essay detailing our first experiment of this nature, BC VI: What is the Circle of the Earth?

What we have documented should not be physically possible according to the globe theory.

It is, however, perfectly in line with the Biblical description of the Earth.

The globe model claims a specific circumference of the Earth and a fairly uniform rate of curvature:

A globally-average value is usually considered to be 6,371 kilometres (3,959 mi) with a 0.3% variability (±10 km) for the following reasons. The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) provides three reference values: the mean radius (R₁) of three radii measured at two equator points and a pole; the authalic radius, which is the radius of a sphere with the same surface area (R₂); and the volumetric radius, which is the radius of a sphere having the same volume as the ellipsoid (R₃). All three values are about 6,371 kilometres (3,959 mi).

— Wikipedia

The horizon is not simply an optical effect on the globe model — it is, allegedly, a physical location that can be observed over large bodies of water (emphasis mine):

The horizon is the apparent curve that separates the surface of a celestial body from its sky when viewed from the perspective of an observer on or near the surface of the relevant body. This curve divides all viewing directions based on whether it intersects the relevant body’s surface or not.

The true horizon is a theoretical line, which can only be observed to any degree of accuracy when it lies along a relatively smooth surface such as that of Earth’s oceans.

— Wikipedia

The math used to derive the horizon distance is fairly straightforward, resulting in the following formula: the observable distance in miles should be equal to 1.22459 miles multiplied by the square root of the observer’s height in feet.

In order to falsify the curvature of the Earth, myself and a small team of Christian scientists decided to replicate an optical laser test that many other “flat earthers” and Biblical cosmologists have performed. In my eyes, the FE Core laser test is the gold standard for experiments of this nature. Our experiment is truly a meagre addendum to the incredible work of the FE Core team.

For our experiment we picked the following two locations situated across Tampa Bay, Florida: Point A was located at the shoreline of Bahai Beach, and Point B was located on the shoreline of Lassing Park. According to our GPS measurements, the distance between Point A and Point B was 9.51 miles. The camera team was at Point A, with both cameras approximately five feet above sea level. Point B was the laser team, with our high-powered blue laser placed approx. three feet above sea level. Both the laser and the Nikon P900 we used to capture this footage were leveled.

Using the curvature formula above — and given that the laser used for this experiment was placed on a tripod three feet above sea level — our laser should have intersected with the horizon at ~2.12 miles, with a hidden height of ~36.4 feet (depending on the varying circumference measurements used).

I can already predict the response to all of these calculations so far: “But what about refraction?”

I’m glad you asked, let’s discuss that (emphasis mine):

The refraction of light is the bending of light rays as they pass from one medium to another, thereby changing the path of the rays. Refraction occurs due to a change in the speed of the light ray or wave. The speed of light is greatest in a vacuum. When the light rays travel from a rarer to a denser medium, they bend towards the normal. If the light rays travel from a denser to a rarer medium, they bend away from the normal. The greater the density of the media, the higher the refractive index. Snell’s law, or the law of refraction, quantitatively defines the amount of bending of waves dependent on the refractive index of the two media.

— Refraction of Light, Kuar & Gurnani

First of all, refraction is a quantifiable and measurable physical phenomenon. That means it can be calculated and accounted for, not just baselessly used to explain away findings we don’t like. Crucially, so long as the light wave is not traveling between mediums, refraction should not even be a factor. But, just to humor the skeptics, let’s calculate it nonetheless.

Given the speed of light through the air and the refractive index of air, we would at most expect to see a divergence of .264 ft over a distance of 9.51 miles. In other words, refraction can not be used explain our findings away — which is, again, assuming it’s even impacting our beam.

But wait, it gets even worse for the globe theory. On the theoretical globe model, any distance past the horizon should be constantly falling away from us. So for this experiment (assuming the globe model is correct), the target’s hidden height is not quite the accurate metric we want to look for. In fact, due to the tangential angle of an observer on a sphere, we should expect to see the laser well overhead of our camera team at Point A (visualized below).

As you can plainly see, that is not what we found at all. Not only did we not observe any hidden height on the target, we did not observe any measurable curvature whatsoever.

— Nikon P900 footage of our laser test (February 4th, 2024).

“¹⁵ The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.”

— Proverbs 18:15 KJV

For our second experiment of this nature, we picked 6 different locations situated across Lake Okeechobee, Florida. This location was ideal for this type of experiment for a couple of reasons: firstly, it is the one of the largest inland bodies of water in North America, providing ample distance over which the camera shy curve should be measurable; and secondly, the lake is ringed by copious amounts of public access points.

Our laser was the same model as last time, a 1,200mW blue laser pointer with a beam diameter of 2mmx5mm and a beam divergence of 1.5mRad — factors which will be more relevant during this experiment. Due to unfortunate technical difficulties, we had to resort to using an iPhone 13 Pro to capture this footage. The camera was placed at roughly the same height as the laser during this experiment (except where annotated at Point 3A), although precise measurements were impossible due to these unforeseen circumstances.

It is theoretically possible that refraction at these distances could impact the beam in a discernible yet still negligible way, with a potential upward refraction of ~.75-1.1 feet. There is also the vast change in the beam’s height brought on by even a minute shift in the angle: at 28 miles, 1/60th of a degree shift would equate to ~41 feet of movement on the other end. Windy conditions caused difficulties obtaining the same level of precision as our Tampa Bay experiment, and we were stretching the theoretical limits of this laser’s capabilities. Nonetheless, while the picture quality is not what we captured last time with our Nikon P900, our findings remain unexplainable within the mainstream scientific paradigm.

Point 1A was located at the shoreline of the Canal Point Recreation Center, and Point 1B was located at the shoreline of the Sam Griffith Overlook. According to our GPS measurements, the distance between Points 1A and 1B was 28.04 miles. At Point 1B, our laser was placed on a tripod, totaling ~10 feet above sea level, so our laser should have intersected with the horizon at ~3.87 miles with a hidden height of ~389.5 feet. That is not what we observed, and instead the focal point of the laser was indeed visible.

Point 2A was located at the Pahokee Campground Marina, and Point 2B was located at Lake Okeechobee Park. According to our GPS measurements, the distance between Points 2A and 2B was 27.33 miles. At Point 2A, our camera was ~10 feet above sea level, so our vision should have been blocked by the horizon at ~3.87 miles. At Point 2B, our laser was placed on a tripod, totaling ~20 feet above sea level, so our laser should have intersected with the horizon at ~5.47 miles with a hidden height of ~318.48 feet. That is not what we observed, as the focal point of the laser was once again visible.

Point 3A was located at the Herbert Hoover Dike, and Point 3B was located at the Nubbin Slough Boat Launch. According to our GPS measurements, the distance between Points 3A and 3B was 31.20 miles. At Point 3A, our camera was ~45 feet above sea level, so our vision should have been blocked by the horizon at ~8.21 miles. At Point 3B, our laser was placed on a tripod ~20 feet above sea level, so our laser should have intersected with the horizon at ~5.47 miles with a hidden height of ~318.48 feet. Again, that is not what we observed.

While the tangential angle of an observer on a sphere could be invoked to explain these particular findings away, there remains a significant problem for that claim. Due to the beam divergence of this laser over these distances, the observable diameter of the laser beam once it crossed the theoretical horizon of the observer should vary anywhere from ~198 feet – 245 feet (Source: OMNI).

The fact that we can see the focal point of the laser at any of these distances — let alone all four of our recorded tests — is so outside of the mere realm of chance, atmos conditions, or random probability that it stretches credulity.

“¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

— The Gospel of John 1:1-5 KJV

The establishment of a spherical Earth, heralded as a triumph of ancient wisdom, is a tale spun from the looms of Platonic reverie and mystic rituals. It was not born from the crucible of empirical observation, but from a fervent devotion to the celestial host. Pythagoras laid the foundational stones of this belief, one where the sphere was not just a shape, but rather, a symbol of divine order. Eratosthenes is consistently lauded as the discoverer of the current globe model, yet that narrative stands on seriously questionable grounds when subjected to the scrutiny of critical analysis. The alliance between Platonists and the Mystery schools in propagating the spherical Earth is not a tale of scientific enlightenment, but a narrative woven from the threads of religious devotion. The perfect symmetry of the sphere became a vessel for their celestial aspirations, a testament to their faith in Man’s wisdom.

A dark haze now veils much of The Church and a profound spiritual blindness has taken root, leading us astray from Truth and into the unending abyss of deception engineered through “science falsely so called” (I Timothy 6:20).

We’ve discarded millennia of fundamental doctrines, replacing them instead with our newfound scientific dogmas. In so many sectors, today’s Church leaders must hopelessly twist Scripture in order to fit unchanging truths into their evershifting scientific paradigm: newfound theological theories are invented in order to harmonize fraudulent or fallacious discoveries with the inerrant Word of God. What so many of them fail to see, refuse to see, or don’t care to discern, is that much of these “scientific” claims stem not from logic or reason, but rather from pagan philosophers and devotees of the Mystery religion (a topic which I have explored in BC II: Scientism vs. Science). There is a direct spiritual lineage from the ancient Babylonian mysteries to modern scientism, unveiling a hidden religious zeal that animated so many of the storied propagators of the globe theory, ultimately leading humanity astray with false promises of “enlightenment” in the misguided and futile attempt to eclipse God’s majestic order.

The Church’s tacit demeaning of Genesis, even having the audacity to cast it as a mere allegory, has fundamentally distorted our perception of reality for centuries, if not millenia.

Further Research

As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise