Gravitation

 

The "law of gravitation" is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this "most exact of all the sciences," this wonderful "feat of the intellect" becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed. In the "Story of the Heavens," by Sir R. Ball, it is stated on page 82 (first two quotes below) and page 101 (3rd quote below):

"The law of gravitation, THE GREATEST DISCOVERY that science has yet witnessed."

"The law of gravitation WHICH UNDERLIES THE WHOLE OF ASTRONOMY."

"The law of gravitation announces that every body in the universe attracts every other body with a force which varies inversely with the square of the distance."

"Popular Science Recreations" by G. Tissandier, pages 486 and 487, contains the following:     "Gravitation is the force which keeps the planets in their orbits."

"Every object in the world tends to attract every other object in proportion to the quantity of matter of which each consists."

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his work "Nature and Man," page 365, says:

"'The laws of light and gravitation,' wrote Mr. Atkinson to Harriet Martineau, 30 years ago, 'extend over the universe, and explain whole classes of phenomena,' and this explanation, according to the same writer, is all-sufficient, 'Philosophy finding no God in nature, NOR SEEING THE WANT OF ANY.'"

C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper, "The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation," says:

"G, represents that mighty principle under the influence of which every star, planet and satellite in the universe pursues its allotted course. Unlike any other known physical influence, it is independent of medium, it knows no refraction, it cannot cast a shadow. It is a mysterious power which NO MAN CAN EXPLAIN, OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE, ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT . . . . . I cannot contemplate this mystery, at which we ignorantly wonder, without thinking of the altar on Mars' hill. When will a St. Paul arise able to declare it unto us? Or is gravitation, like life, a mystery that never be solved?"—Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, March 1895, p. 355.   

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper "Nature and Law," published in the "Modern Review" for October, 1890, says:

"The first of the great achievements of Newton in relation to our present subject, was a piece of purely Geometrical reasoning. ASSUMING two forces to act on a body, of which one should be capable of imparting to it uniform motion in a straight line, whilst the other should attract it towards a fixed point in accordance with Galileo's law of gravity, he demonstrated that the path of the body would be deflected into a curve . . . . . The idea of continuous onward motion in a straight line, as the result of an original impulsive force not antagonised or affected by any other—formularised by Newton as his first 'law of motion'—is not borne out by any acquired experience, and does not seem likely to be ever thus verified. For in no experiment we have it in our power to make, can we entirely eliminate the antagonising effects of friction and atmospheric resistance; and thus all movement that is subject to this retardation, and is not sustained by any fresh action of the impelling force, must come to an end. Hence the conviction commonly entertained that Newton's first 'law' of motion must be true, cannot be philosophically admitted to be anything more than a probability . . . . . WE HAVE NO PROOF, AND IN THE NATURE OF THINGS CAN NEVER GET ONE, OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE EXERTED BY THE EARTH, OR BY ANY OF THE BODIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, UPON OTHER BODIES AT A DISTANCE. Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility of rationally accounting for action at a distance through an intervening vacuum, was the weak point of HIS system. All that we can be said to know is that which we learn from our own experience. Now, in regard to the Sun's attraction for the Earth and Planets, WE HAVE NO CERTAIN EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Unless we could be transported to his surface, we have no means of experimentally comparing Solar gravity with Terrestrial gravity; and if we could ascertain this, we should be no nearer the determination of his attraction for bodies at a distance. THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION THEN, IS A PURE ASSUMPTION."

In "Letters to the British Association," Professor Bernstein says:

"The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd . . . . . Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is PASSIVE BY NATURE, is a supreme illusion . . . . . it is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man's mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment."

The following extracts are taken from "A Million of Facts," by Sir Richard Phillips:

"If the sun has any power, it must be derived from motion; and if acting on bodies at a distance, like Jupiter on his moons, or the Earth on its moon, THERE MUST BE AN INTERVENING MEDIUM TO CONDUCT ITS MOMENTUM THROUGH ITS SYSTEM."   

"It is a principle never to be lost sight of, that circular motion is a necessary result of equal action and reaction in contrary directions; for the harmony would be disturbed by variation of distance, if the motion were rectilinear. The same action and reaction are therefore only to be preserved by reciprocal circular motion. NO ATTRACTION AND NO PROJECTILE FORCE ARE THEREFORE NECESSARY. THEIR INVENTION MUST BE REGARDED AS BLUNDERS OF A SUPERSTITIOUS AGE."

"If the bodies came near while moving THE SAME WAY, there would be no mutual REACTION, and they would go together for want of reaction, and NOT OWING TO THAT MECHANICAL IMPOSSIBILITY CALLED ATTRACTION."

"To accommodate THE HYPOTHETICAL LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION to the phenomena of the Planets, astronomers have preferred to change the mean density of matter itself; and the Earth, for comparison, being taken at a density of 1,000, to accommodate Mercury to THE ASSUMED LAW, it is taken as 2,585; Venus, 1,024; Mars, 656; Jupiter, 201; Saturn, 103; and Herschel, 218. Consequently, we have the paradox, that Jupiter, 1,290 times larger than the Earth, contains but 323 times more atoms. Saturn 1,107 times larger, but 114 times more atoms. Even the Sun, according to these theorists, is but one-fourth the density of the Earth! There may be differences, but chemistry and all the laws that unite and compound atoms, are utterly at variance with so rash and wild an hypothesis."   

"It is waste of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but as astronomy and all science is beset with fancies about attraction and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate them."

                           C
A O — — — — — l — — — — — O B     

"If there are two bodies, and it is required to move A to C, the force moving A to C must proceed from the side A. Either some impact, or some involvement of a motion towards C, must act at A to carry A to C. The modern schools, however, assert that B may move A to C, and A move B to C; and this is mutual attraction!! Hence it is necessary to believe that B acts on the side A, where B is not present; and that A acts on B on the side B, where A is not present. In other words, A is required to be where it is not, and also be in force at A, so as to move B to C! All of which is absurd."

"If in any case A and B approach, it is not because A moves B towards itself, or B moves A towards itself, but owing to some causes which affect the space in which A and B are situated; and which causes act on A at A, and on B at B . . . . the statement that A moves B, and B moves A, is ignorance, and is what is meant by attraction. It is also worse than ignorance, to justify idleness by asserting that the true cause is indifferent; or to justify ignorance, by asserting that it is unknowable!!"

"This reasoning applies to every species of Attraction, whatever may be the pomposity of equivocal terms in which it is described. Universally, bodies cannot push other bodies towards themselves."

C — — — — — O A   B O — — — — — D     

"If A and B are said to repel one another, and that B makes A move to C, and A makes B move to D, we have to bear in mind, that while A is moving to C it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be moving B towards D. In like manner, while B is moving to D, it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be in force in the contrary direction so as to move A to C." Every species and variety of Attraction and Repulsion are therefore absurd.      

"MATTER IS IN ALL CASES THE CONDUCTOR OF MOTION. If a body moves, it is because it is the patient of some sufficient momentum of body or matter acting ON the side FROM which the body moves, and only in force in that direction." "Some adopters of attraction, &c., talk, by false analogy, of drawing, others of pulling, lifting, &c. La Place INVENTS gravitating atoms, and gives them a velocity of 6,000 times that of light, which in some way (known only to himself) performs the work of bringing the body in; others IMAGINE little hooks! As to drawing, pulling, &c., it behooves them to show the tackle—the levers, the ropes, &c."

"In spite of all the learning, ingenuity, and elaborations of men, confessedly very able, if there is not and cannot be any action of the nature of attraction, and if the phenomena ascribed to it are local effects of palpable local causes, and if all the phenomena and involvement maybe clearly explained on different principles, then it may be to be lamented that so much ability and character should have been wasted, while a respect for truth and sound reasoning demands that the whole should be FORGOTTEN AS A DREAM, OR DEMOLISHED AS A CARD HOUSE."

Professor Airy, in his "Lectures on Astronomy," 5th Edition, page 194, informs us: "Newton was the first person who made a calculation of the figure of the earth on the theory of gravitation. He took the following SUPPOSITION as the only one to which his theory could be applied. He ASSUMED the earth to be a fluid. This fluid matter he ASSUMED to be equally dense in every part . . . . . For trial of his theory he SUPPOSED the ASSUMED fluid earth to be a spheroid. In this manner he INFERRED that the form of the earth would be a spheroid, in which the length of the shorter is to the longer, or equatorial diameter, in the proportion of 229 to 230."

The "New Principia," by N. Crossland, contains the following:

"In ascending a hill we experience a hard struggle, and feel more fatigued than when walking on level ground. Why is this? The Newtonian attributes this to the attraction of gravitation of the earth, against the pull of which we have to contend; but if he would be consistent with his theory that the attraction of gravitation diminishes inversely as the square of the distance from the centre of the earth, we ought, in defiance of experience, to feel it to be less laborious to ascend a hill than to promenade the same distance on level ground, because as we ascend we recede from the centre of the earth; therefore the force of gravitation ought to diminish in a corresponding degree. The Newtonian can only get over this difficulty by a species of scientific quibbling. According to the definition of weight I have given, the solution of the problem is perfectly simple. In ascending a hill a man comes in conflict with the law that the natural tendency of any body is to seek the easiest and shortest route to its level of stability. He chooses the very reverse, and must therefore endure the consequences of acting in opposition to this law. At every step he has to lift his own weight, and the higher he mounts the more he feels the influence of the law which he defies. His easiest and more direct course to obey the law of weight is to remain where he is; the next is to descend to a lower level.   

"The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it. Is it so? If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcame the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis.

"Again, take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why—if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation—does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so: but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?

"We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising a hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess? Common-sense must reject this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the results experienced. If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence. Fortunately for our faculty of locomotion, the Newtonian hypothesis may be rejected as a snare and a delusion.

"It is quite amusing to watch Newtonians and Darwinians floundering about in their attempts to expound the mysteries of creation. Their theories are as ridiculous as the fashion which once prevailed for Della-Cruscan poetry, and they ought to be treated with equal severity.

"It seems quite possible that during the last two hundred years we have been living in a sort of scientific fool's paradise, and that universal gravitation is a gigantic Newtonian mare's nest.

"As a theoretical scientific guide we must give up Sir Isaac Newton as useless and misleading, and allow his reputation to retire into private life.   

"In Knowledge of the 17th and 24th Feb., 1882, there appeared a discourse on The Birth of the Moon by Tidal Evolution, by Dr. Ball, the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, which I should say is without exception, the most delusive and absurd contribution ever made to so-called science. At one time I thought that 'Parallax,' who told us that the earth was a flat plane like a plate, was the most misguided man in the kingdom, but I now believe that he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific wisdom, and to sit down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of Dublin."

I have quoted at length on this important matter, and the evidence here produced, besides very much more in the same direction, for which I have not the space here, shows clearly that THERE IS NO SUCH FORCE AS GRAVITATION IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE.

One of the world's so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is quoted in Professor Carpenter's "Nature and Man," page 385, as saying:

"Although we speak of a man's fall as caused by the slipping of his foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may be) the efficient cause IS THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE OF THE EARTH, which the loss of support to the man's foot brings into operation."

If a man is not "deeper" than to believe what this "deep" thinker has left on record in this matter; if he has no more brain power than to accept the foregoing statement, I would strongly advise him to cease thinking altogether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp enough, are as dull as bricks and as credulous as children when the awe-inspiring subject of gravitation, "that grand masterpiece of astronomy," is the theme. To ask the reason why, or to venture to suggest that the assumptions of the "learned" require some sort of proof to back them up, never seems to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous humbug. A. Giberne, in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," page 27, says:

"If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?"  

A very proper question, truly. And when this question is propounded to astronomers, they cannot give an answer worth recording. They simply do not know how to answer the question without stultifying their common-sense. But the above writer thinks it can be answered, so says:

"Did you ever tie a ball to a string and swing it rapidly round and round your hand? If you did, YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED THE STEADY OUTWARD PULL OF THE BALL."   

The "steady outward pull of the ball" clearly implies that the ball has intelligence, and knows just what to do so as to prevent its hitting the hand of the operator. The "outward pull" of a ball which is fastened to the hand of the operator by a string, is clearly impossible. If the operator ceased to impel it round and round his hand by the mechanical attachment and the power he exerts in swinging it round, the ball would seek its level of stability and fall to the ground. And, as this illustration is used to teach what gravitation is, and how it acts, we shall just follow the illustration to its logical issue, and see where the theory is. The illustration implies that BETWEEN ALL THE BODIES IN THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS A CONNECTING LINK, which keeps the "body" that attracts attached to the "body" that is attracted. This connecting link, in the case of the ball, is the string. Now, we could readily understand gravitation if this illustration conveyed to us by the ball and the string were a correct representation of fact. But, we very naturally ask, what is the connecting link? Of what does it consist? And of what do all the connecting links between the sun and the myriad orbs of heaven consist? Would not the "strings" get somewhat entangled? Has this connecting link ever been observed anywhere? The answer to these pertinent questions is that THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK in existence. When the "missing link'' is produced, we are prepared to admit all the gravitation theorists teach on the subject. Until then we shall continue to regard it as the myth it undoubtedly is. But we are not done with the illustration yet. The "ball and string" device sets forth that the "body" that attracts is not only connected with the "body" attracted, but that the former IS THE MOTIVE POWER OF THE LATTER—that the sun is the power which compels the earth to revolve round it, even as the motive power of the ball is the exertion of the hand of the operator. Without the connecting link the earth would fall (according to the astronomers) in a rectilinear path for ever. But what these wise men do not see, and which is a necessary part of the theory, as represented by the ball and string idea, is that the motive power also must come from the sun. Without this motive power and the connecting link, the whole of the theory falls to pieces. THERE IS NO MOTIVE POWER IN THE SUN TO CAUSE THE EARTH TO REVOLVE AROUND IT, AND THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH TO KEEP THE LATTER IN ITS POSITION, consequently the theory of universal gravitation has no existence in fact.

"He who cannot reason is a fool; he who will not reason is a bigot; he who dares not reason is a coward; but he who can and dares to reason is a MAN."

If the reader can and dares to reason, let him reason this matter out and discover whether astronomy as drummed into children's heads at school, and vauntingly displayed, with many pictures, from public platforms, has one inch of standing ground, or one reason to offer as an apology for its further existence and power to befool mankind longer. These are strong statements, but not stronger than the facts warrant.   

"The Story of the Heavens," by Sir Robert Ball, is not only an authoritative treatise, which it is, coming from such a recognised exponent of the "science"; but a fulsome account of general principles and details in popular form. As a literary production, it possesses considerable merit, and its good English entitles it to the respect and consideration of all its readers. But as a contribution to science, it is the most absurd and unreasoning conglomeration of nonsensical and impossible ideas I have ever read. On page 110 of this book, we read that:

"Kepler found that the movements of the planets could be explained by supposing that the path in which each one revolved was an ellipse. This in itself was a DISCOVERY of the most commanding importance."

To explain anything by a supposition, and then to label the supposition a discovery is ridiculous in the "domain of science" and a marvel of literary ingenuity.

On the same page, the first law of planetary motion is enunciated in these words, "each planet revolves around the sun in an elliptical path, having the sun as one of the foci," and on page 112 the ellipse is shown with the sun in one focus. Throughout the book, however, the other focus is not mentioned, and it is very evident from the diagram that if the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space "in a right line for ever," as astronomers say.

On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun's attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe! As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great "discovery" of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent. The law of dynamics, assisted by geometry, makes it, as the learned say, "mathematically certain" that no such force as gravitation exists anywhere in the universe. As another has well said, its invention must be regarded as a blunder of a superstitious age.   

If the earth were the globe of astronomical invention, and if gravitation were needed to keep it in its path around the sun, it is easily seen that gravitation must be circular, as then and then only, would the attraction be equal in every part of the path, and so cause the earth to describe an exact circle throughout the year. Astronomers say that the earth moves and not the sun. And that this movement of the earth causes the seasons. And further, that the movement of the sun which we see is really caused by the movement of the earth. If, therefore, the sun appears to make an exactly circular path every day of the year, there might be some ground for the astronomers' supposition of gravitation. That the sun's path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours at the equinoxes and solstices—completely disproves the "might have been" of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation.

It has long been pointed out that gravitation, if it existed at all, must be circular, as the following from Drapers' "Conflict between Religion and Science" page 168, shows:

"Astronomers justly affirm that the book of Copernicus, 'De Revolutionibus,' changed the face of their science. It incontestably established the heliocentric theory. It showed that the distance of the fixed stars is infinitely great, and that the earth is a mere point in the heavens. Anticipating Newton, Copernicus imputed gravity to the sun, the moon and heavenly bodies, but he was led astray by assuming that the celestial motions must be circular. Observations on the orbit of Mars, and his different diameters at different times, had led Copernicus to this theory."

That the paths of the orbs of heaven are not exactly circular disproves the theory of gravitation entirely.

It is impossible to make a ball tied to the hand with a string revolve in an elliptical path, circular motion only being possible. So we may consign the illustration, together with the thing it is intended to illustrate, into oblivion. The volume already quoted, "Sun, Moon, and Stars," states, on page 73, that:

"Comets obey the attraction of the sun, yet he appears to have a singular power of driving the comets' tails away from himself. For, however rapidly the comet may be rushing round the sun, and however long the tail may be, IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS FOUND TO STREAM IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE SUN."

Here we have an acknowledged failure of the law of gravitation, which is said to be universal. Now comes a declaration which supports my contention that gravitation is non-existent.   

In "Science and Culture," by Professor T. H. HUXLEY, page 136, the following statement is made:

"If the law of gravitation EVER FAILED TO BE TRUE, EVEN TO THE SMALLEST EXTENT, for that period, the CALCULATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMER HAVE NO APPLICATION."

After such an "authoritative" declaration, we may well dismiss the subject, and we are fairly entitled to conclude, with such a consensus of evidence against the commonly received "view" of gravitation, together with the application of the principles of sound logic, that GRAVITATION HAS NOT AND NEVER HAD ANY EXISTENCE, and the idea of such a force must be relegated to the limbo of mythology.

ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE, BUT A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship

• In a flat earth model, there is a definite up and a definite down. In a heliocentric model, everything is "relative" (such as people in Australia walking upside down but they feel right side up). Gravity is in fact a theory. If you read Newton's work, he has a lot of "what ifs" "maybes" and "possibly's" throughout. There is no mathematical equation for gravity and if there was it cannot be demonstrated to prove its accuracy. In fact, it has never been demonstrated that an object with less mass is attracted to another with more mass, or that the smaller object would orbit the larger. Taking your cell phone and dropping it on the floor is does not prove a magical force called gravity exists. it only proves that your phone is heavier than the air molecules surrounding it. Anything more dense than air will fall and anything less dense than air will rise. Why aren't helium balloons dragged to the earth? Because the balloon itself is too light? But if we take out the helium, it falls to the ground.. seems like gravity has a mind of its own. Take a rock with equal mass to that of a log of wood. The log will float and the rock will sink. This is bouyancy at work. The rock is more dense than water.. it falls. The log is less dense than water, it floats.

I can sit here all day and come up with a list of exceptions to gravity but that probably won't change your mind. However, I'd like to note that gravity does not adhere to the scientific method which is something that can be observed, demonstrated and repeated.

Show me a ball with water sticking to it. Show me water bending due to gravity. Show something orbit another object or even the most minute attraction (easy test would be a lead ball and a marble in space).

In the flat earth model, gravity is not required. The globalists simply needed an explanation to silence the critics asking how water sticks to a ball. The earth holds trillions upon trillions of gallons of water to the underside, firm in place, yet bugs, fish and just about anything else is free to move freely. Rivers, must flow uphill over the curve before reaching the ocean.. ehhhhhhhhhh really? Ascending several miles uphill I might add. You're free to believe in fairy tales but I say show me the experiment that can be reproduced outside of "earth is ball" because there's enough evidence to show this is a Masonic hoax (otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation). If gravity is a law or a fact etc.. you should be able to produce a scaled to size experiment. You cannot. Nobody can. If you're OK with that, then we should be able to agree that gravity is NOT a fact nor is it scientific (even if the entire 'scientific' community agrees.. I don't give a rip. Majority opinion doesn't make something fact nor true). Cheers.

Rockets Push Off Air

https://flatearthtextbook.blogspot.com/

• 

Siegfried Verbeke, Unsung Hero of Revisionism

Siegfried Verbeke was there when he was needed, and when it mattered. Every time.

First, some background: In 1994, the German authorities were hell-bent at choking all efforts to publish new, trail-blazing revisionist research. The 1993 German original of my expert report on the chemistry of Auschwitz (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 2) induced the German thought police to put me on trial, the main proceedings of which started in November of 1994. The publication of the German original of my anthology titled Dissecting the Holocaust (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 1) appeared that same month, resulting in house searches and confiscations all over Germany in an attempt to annihilate that book. A detailed article of mine on fraudulent forensic research about Auschwitz, conducted by a Polish team of pseudo-scholars, led to another criminal investigation against me. Wherever an article of mine appeared during 1995, it resulted in the offices of the respective periodical being raided, office equipment getting seized, the affected magazine issue being confiscated and destroyed, and everyone involved investigated for saying things Jews hate.

In the summer of 1993, I had launched another anthology project, a response of several leading revisionists to a book by French pharmacist-turned-historian Jean-Claude Pressac. The resulting anthology now carries the title Auschwitz: Plain Facts (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 14). It reached maturity in 1995, but at that point in time, no German publishing outlet was willing to touch anything I had written with a ten-foot pole. It was a safe recipe to get a visit from the Dezernat Staatsschutz, the branch of Germany’s police proudly carrying on the Gestapo’s tradition. So where would this book see the day of light? Who would dare put his name and address on it?

Riding to the rescue came a knight in shining armor: Siegfried Verbeke, a Dutchman from Antwerp, Flanders, and owner of a copy shop with the ability to produce paperback books. Already in 1993, he had published a Dutch and French translation of my expert report on Auschwitz, although without asking me first (hence, he translated an outdated text…). Learning about the rising tide of persecution against me, Siegfried got in touch in 1995, offering his help. I asked him whether he would take on the risky project of publishing the new book. He eagerly agreed, and so it was issued under the imprint of the not-for-profit organization he had established ten years earlier: Stichting Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, or V.H.O. for short, meaning Foundation for Free Historical Research. Siegfried’s brother agreed to have his name put on the book as the responsible editor. And so it was done.

The operation turned into somewhat of a mess when I left Germany in early 1996, impeding communications between Siegfried and me for a while, until I had finally settled in England for good in the summer of that year – or so I hoped. What used to be an obscure Flemish outlet was subsequently lifted to worldwide prominence. In 1997, I launched a German quarterly periodical officially published by V.H.O. and bearing that foundation’s name in its title: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung: Quarterly for Free Historical Research (VffG). Siegfried and I managed to acquire the contact lists from several aging German revisionists, such as Thies Christophersen and Udo Walendy. With this potentially solid customer base, we then launched a magazine- and book-publishing enterprise that took off nicely. VffG soon had some 1,000 subscribers, advertising V.H.O.’s range of books and brochures at the end of each edition.

Later in 1997, after dabbling with html and the internet for a few months using AOL’s service of permitting subdomains, I bought the rights to the three-letter domain name vho.org. This put V.H.O. on the map as a multi-language revisionist outlet online, for everyone to see, and most importantly out of reach of the Gestapo. While Siegfried had no skills in the computer and internet departments, he was enthusiastic about what I was doing, making sure VHO.org got all the attention it deserved. When the Flemish media reported about this evil denier in their midst in May of 2001, initiated by a police raid triggered by a French search warrant, Siegfried proudly wore a t-shirt with the simple message “WWW.VHO.ORG” on it (see the image to the right). Journalists photographed him that way, and this image made the rounds in mainstream media, leading to traffic spiking on our site. He printed simple stickers with the same message, which people in Europe bought in bulk and stuck to utility poles all over the continent. Mimicking this, others started simply spray-painting this domain name on random billboards. Just mentioning the domain name led to criminal investigation in Germany for stirring up the people. It also led to media publishing photographs of these disfigured billboards, again helping us out greatly.

We had fun!

Since I was hiding in England under an assumed identity, and Siegfried was fronting for me in Flanders, communication with my customers was cumbersome and often heavily delayed. Siegfried collected incoming mail and forwarded it to me, and I sent outgoing letters to him, to be put in the mail in Antwerp. In the long run, this was not a good business model, and so in early 1998, we parted ways. I established my own publishing outlet, Castle Hill Publishers, yet operated the vho.org site as before, whose online store then featured both Castle Hill’s offerings and those of VHO.

A disagreement between Siegfried and me on how to run the web site and what products to sell through Castle Hill Publishers’ online shop led me to take legal control of the domain name in the summer of 2000, which up to that point had been registered by me in Siegfried’s name. Siegfried remained oblivious of my domain-name heist, which at that point in time was still rather easy to pull off. In fact, I suspect he never even knew that he had been the formal owner at any point in time.

This change of ownership in 2000 turned out to be a blessing for him in 2005. During that year, Germany initiated a major crack-down on international revisionism. Ernst Zündel was deported from Canada, I was deported from the U.S., and Siegfried got arrested in Belgium due to a German arrest warrant. The German authorities wanted to blame him for everything connected to www.vho.org. From a German prison, I managed to collect evidence proving that Siegfried had not owned the site since summer 2000, and I signed an affidavit stating that he has never been involved in anything concerning the site anyhow. He merely advertised it. Since “propaganda offenses” expire in Germany after five years, and Siegfried got arrested five years and a few months after the change of ownership, the German authorities had to let him go – and focus their zeal on me instead.

Between 2005 and 2009, www.vho.org went partially dormant during my time in prison, being run by a volunteer who had assisted me in running the server and any software installed. After my release, he quit, but I was not in a position to do much with it either while living in Europe, within the Gestapo’s reach. After immigrating permanently to the U.S., my focus turned entirely to a close cooperation with CODOH, and vho.org became a mere static repository of revisionist items posted since its inception.

During my prison time and the forced dormancy of vho.org, Siegfried’s focus gradually shifted to a close cooperation with French revisionist Vincent Reynouard, with whom he had been working since 1997. For example, they pursued several video projects together, most notably on the Einsatzgruppen executions behind the Eastern front (all in French: La “Shoah par balles” (ep. 1); La “Shoah par balles” (ep. 2); Le mythe de la “Shoah par balles”).

When Vincent needed help in 2015 to dodge a one-year prison term imposed by the French authorities, and a sheer endless string of further prosecutions, Siegfried was again there to help. His wife allowed Vincent to live in a small house she owned in the suburbs of London. That was the beginning of Vincent’s years in British exile, which ended only in early 2024 with his extradition to France.

Even many seasoned revisionists or afficionados of revisionism may never have heard of Siegfried Verbeke. He usually avoided the limelight but was a decisive mover and organizer in the background during the 1990s and into the late 2010s. Health issues finally forced him to slow down in the 2020s.

He passed away on June 28, 2026, at the age of 85. Another dear friend and comrade in our struggle for freedom and truth entered the eternal hunting grounds.

See also the birthday presentation below created on occasion of Siegfried’s 80th birthday.

By Germar Rudolf

https://codoh.com/

Women can destroy any society to which they belong simply by refusing to be wives and mothers

 

Second Thoughts from an Ex-Feminist

The Goddess that Failed: Feminism’s Unending War Against Men, Families, and Civilization Itself

Janice Fiamengo
New English Review Press, 2026

Janice Fiamengo, born 1964, is a retired professor of English at the University of Ottawa. Entering the academy as an impressionable young woman in the 1980s, her initial acceptance of feminism must have been almost a foregone conclusion: “I have felt its euphoric exultation and its self-flattering conviction of moral purity,” she admits. She studied all the standard feminist texts and for many years took the validity of their analysis for granted. But The Goddess that Failed is not her personal story. However her disillusionment came about, she began speaking out against the movement in 2012. Her work can be followed online at The Fiamengo File. https://substack.com/@fiamengofile

The author does not blunt her message with any assumption that there must originally have been a good, moderate, or reasonable feminism that was later hijacked, betrayed, or taken to excess by wayward followers. She reminds us, for example, that the campaign for women’s suffrage in the United Kingdom over a century ago escalated from heckling politicians and smashing shop windows to arson attacks on homes and churches. Some suffragettes concocted letter bombs out of phosphorous and sulfuric acid. One threw a hatchet at Prime Minister Asquith:

Through all the destruction of property, threat to livelihoods, and physical harm to innocent bystanders, the suffragettes saw themselves as sacrificial heroines. Like many terrorists, they envisioned their cause as pure enough to justify nearly any level of violence…. They were successful in their campaign at least in part because the men they castigated as villains couldn’t bear to deal firmly with their maudlin claims and dangerous acts.

Fiamengo knows that a crucial element in feminism’s success has been the strong natural bias in favor of women that characterizes both sexes: a synergy between female in-group preference and the male protective instinct. There has been some objective research on this timeless phenomenon. In 1994, for example, psychologists Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic reported that both male and female research subjects were more likely to ascribe positive traits to women than to men, with the bias measurably stronger in women; they christened this the “women-are-wonderful” effect. Later studies found women’s in-group bias four and a half times stronger than men’s. In 2019 British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry developed the concept of “Gamma bias” to describe “unconscious prejudice against men and boys,” as observed in the tendency of both men and women to sympathize more with women than men.

Such studies are valuable, but as with much of social psychology, they merely confirm something that has always been widely known: men are expected to put the needs of women and children first. As Fiamengo points out, feminists could never have achieved the success they have if men were remotely similar to the selfish brutes they depict. Even half a century of feminist fury has been unable to do away with men’s natural bias in women’s favor.

The other side of male bias in women’s favor is what the author calls “the empathy gap”—the often-shocking inability or unwillingness of many women to empathize with male suffering. She recounts that after the sinking of the Titanic, a group of women survivors organized to build a memorial to the men who had sacrificed themselves in the women’s favor:

Some feminists refused gratitude, noting that men had built the ship and therefore could be expected to take their lumps when it proved faulty. Some proclaimed with fury that women suffered daily under men’s cruelty; a single day of suffering and death paled by comparison.

During the First World War, thousands of British women participated in a mass-shaming ritual of their menfolk, accosting any man they found in civilian clothing to present him with a white feather as a symbol of his cowardice. They accompanied the gesture with rehearsed speeches making clear their furious contempt: “Why don’t you fellows enlist? Your King and Country want you. We don’t.” This went on for the entire duration of the war, and feathers were even given to wounded men on leave or underage boys. One sixteen-year-old was so mortified by the bullying that he lied about his age in order to enlist and was promptly killed. Fiamengo also mentions an officer awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery; that same day he changed into civilian clothes only to be given a white feather by some female passers-by: “He accepted without a word and, as a curiosity, put it with his V.C. He remarked to a friend that he was probably the only man who ever received on the same day emblems of bravery and cowardice.” The man later died at the front.

Such attitudes continue to this day, as feminists brag online about “bathing in male tears” and exult over various instances of male suffering.

The similarities between feminism and Marxism have long been noted: indeed, as far back as 1884, Friedrich Engels explicitly drew a parallel between wives and the oppressed proletariat. Most importantly, feminism shares the Marxist mental gestalt whereby society is envisaged in terms of conflicting innocent and guilty groups. As Fiamengo observes, this leaves feminism unable to affirm any universal principles of justice: “it is incapable of extending empathy to whose it has been taught to see as oppressors” or “of demanding accountability from those it has been taught to see as victims.” Because of this inability, “one of feminism’s biggest lies has been its declared aim to overthrow traditional Western gender arrangements in order to liberate men as well as women into an equal partnership.”

This last remark is a useful reminder: in the more optimistic days of early “second wave” feminism, back in the 1970s, the movement did indeed claim to seek the liberation of men as well as women from traditional arrangements. Female careerism, e.g., would supposedly ease the burden upon husbands to be sole providers for their families. Such talk has now largely disappeared.

The parallel with Marxism is instructive here as well. Officially, socialist revolution was supposed to liberate the bourgeoisie as well as the working class from the “alienation” that characterizes capitalism. The sons of capitalists would one day join hands with the sons of the proletariat in order to build the classless society of the future, and the unfortunate but necessary stage of “merciless class struggle” would barely survive as a memory. But Marxist practitioners such as Lenin quickly became too preoccupied with killing the class enemy to worry much about healing him of his capitalist alienation.

A similar development can be observed in feminism as well: an involuntarily divorced husband would not make much headway in family court by appealing to the supposed feminist goal of reducing his burdens as a provider. “The last thing aimed at by feminism,” Fiamengo notes, “is the liberation of men from their traditional roles and obligations.” Feminists alternate opportunistically between their explicit egalitarian ideology and appeals to traditional notions of male duty; logical consistency is not important to them.

For this reason, close analysis of feminist doctrine is perhaps of less use in making sense of the movement than a look at the psychological rewards it provides to adherents. A relevant 2020 study involving researchers from America and—perhaps not accidentally—Israel identifies what it calls “TIV,” the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood, as a stable personality trait involving a chronic, deep-seated feeling of being a victim across many different relationships and situations. Fiamengo summarizes:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

Fiamengo notes that many young women experience something like a religious conversion upon “finding” feminism: “adherents feel washed clean, reborn, filled with purpose and zeal…. All of life’s dissatisfactions make sense and can be blamed on the oppressive system. Nothing is one’s own fault.”



Caption on Fiamengo’s website: Feminism Cannot Be Reformed

Obviously, not all women are feminists. American conservatives have long taken comfort from the well-attested finding that a majority of women express reservations about the label. But all radical movements involve a small, hard core and a far larger and fuzzier periphery, and feminism’s periphery now extends deeply into Western society. Fiamengo writes that, while she tries to maintain the distinction between women and feminists, this can sometimes be difficult.

A 2020 Pew poll found that only 19% of American women say the term feminist describes them “very well,” but another 42% say it describes them “somewhat well.” So that makes 61% unwilling to distance themselves from feminism unambiguously. A closer examination of the other 39% would probably reveal plenty of feminist influence as well. As the author notes, most women now take for granted that they belong to a “historically oppressed group,” and accept as a matter of course that special legal protections and government programs should promote their advancement and well-being. People cannot be marinated in an ideology their entire lives without coming to believe that at least some of its claims must be true. Fiamengo also mentions the phenomenon of “confirmation bias:” applying a feminist lens when viewing the world helps one see evidence supporting it while screening out contradictory information.

The author is under no illusions that feminism can be reformed:

Even today, half a century after the implementation of equity hiring programs as well as ceaseless female empowerment campaigns in schools and universities, many women are still angry and many men still trying to make amends. It must be stopped. We will never reach a point where feminists decide to call off the gender war, accepting that men have done enough for them. There will never come a point where the suffering of boys and men matters more to feminists than their own power.

Women can destroy any society to which they belong simply by refusing to be wives and mothers. Feminism brings such a refusal about by directly undermining women’s ability to love. No less than other hostile forces discussed on this website, it is a deadly threat to European Civilization.

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.
From replays:

StrathClydesays

I’ve studied this issue for a few years and have come to a few conclusions.
Firstly, as the authoress of the book states, there is no ‘correct’ Feminism. Feminism in all it’s guises and methods is a disease. But it’s also a disease caused by a precedent.
Secondly, it is incorrect to lay the blame for Feminism at only the doorstep of the Jews. As with many ‘issues’ of our age, the soil was first ripe for it’s poisoning. Beginning in the 19th century, men of the West began the process of becoming feminized. We advanced our civilization and societies too fast. Treitschke, was one of a number of commentators writing in the end of the 19th century who complained of it in his time and place. This feminization of the White race was enormously exacerbated in Europe in particular by the dysgenic processes caused by two fratricidal world wars. These were wars the scale of which had no precedent, and as such, the dysgenic results also has no precedent in terms of scale (though there were precedednts in a smaller scale following, for example, Greece [5th cent. BC] and Rome’s own [1st cent. BC] fratricidal wars). British-Italian social philosopher Anthony M. Ludovici wrote of it extensively following the First World War (see ‘Man: An Indictment'[1927] and Woman: A Vindication'[1929]). David S. Jordan’s book, ‘War and The Breed’, written specifically on the topic of the dysgenic cost of the industrial slaughter of the First World War is also very much worth reading.
Thirdly, and directly connected to the above, women did not simply ‘adopt’ Feminism and declare war on men. Women are built as reactive creatures, and throughout the entire history of civilization, men have always been the tone-setters, the arbiters. Or at least, they’re meant to be. But Nature deplores a vacuum. The men became feminized, lost too many of the old masculine qualities, the women became masculinized and – most crucially – the women (at the collective-unconscious level) subtly lost respect for their menfolk.
Lastly, the most profound conclusion I have come to is that Feminism and many other aspects of recalcitrant behaviour exhibited by females (“the women are out of control”) are all efforts towards provoking men in order to elicit a response from men that may befit the default masculine nature of their ancestors – one of God’s/Nature’s great attempts at ‘resetting’ for the sake of returning to a healthier equilibrium. The problem – for many, many decades now – is that men have not been responding the way women/Nature/God would prefer and have instead been accomodating women’s displeasing unwomanly behaviours (the ‘tests’) and worse, giving them more extensive opportunities to displace us and undermine masculinity that remains in our civilization.
The women give the ‘tests’, but the men have been failing them, again and again and again (“Refugees Welcome”). The modern phenomenon of White women actively seeking out new arrivals right off the boats (often at cost of their lives – proof they are acting at an unconscious level) is a classic example of this GOADING that I am talking about. These women – unconsciously, making use of the ‘skills’ gifted to her by nature/God, are trying to provoke a reaction from the menfolk by using the interlopers as pychological weapons; they are trying to trigger a reaction that would result in the resetting of the national fabric to a status that is more conducive to a safer, healthier and more beneficial state for all the natives through extirpation of the interlopers. But the men are not doing this and the women willc keep performing these ‘tests’ until the men finally colectively respond, respond in a manner that is strictly exclusive of the trends of modernity or the wishes of foreigners. In their soul, Womankind understands that it’s the menfolk who determine the course of civilzation and whether the race thrives & multiplies or declines and dies out.
“The women are out of control” Because the men have lost the will to control them.
Feminism is more about men than women.

F. Roger Devlin:

I agree that women are unconsciously hoping for us to take charge and restrain them. But this is difficult when doing so is considered “violence against women” and gets you jailed. So many men are simply shunning them altogether instead.

 https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

"Grandpa, what's a 'pseudo-scientist,'?" I asked

Chuckling, he answered, "'Pseudo' means fake or false. A 'scientist,' is anyone who uses observation and experimentation to formulate logical conclusions about the natural world. So a 'pseudo-scientist' is a fake scientist, or someone who denies actual observation and experimentation in favor of fairy-tale theories. You and I are real scientists, my boy!" grandpa exclaimed taking a long spirit-level from his truck and setting it upon a nearby beach-side railing. "The pseudo-scientists say Earth is a big ball 3,963 miles in radius so we can use the Pythagorean theorem again to calculate the curvature that should exist according to them, which turns out to be 8 inches per mile squared. This means after 2 miles the Earth should curve 32 inches, after 3 miles 72 inches, and after 10 miles (the width of this here cove) the Earth should curve downwards a full 66 feet! Line your eyes up behind this railing and see for yourself. Does the horizon dip?" 

Observing the perfectly flat horizon from shore to shore I shook my head, "no."

"Of course not," grandpa smiled, "you will never see a curved horizon or curved water. It's called the 'horizon' for good reason, because it's always perfectly 'horizon'tal, and it's called 'sea-level,' because bodies of water at rest are always perfectly level. Whether it's in a beaker, a bottle, a bathtub, a pond, a lake or an ocean, the natural physics of water and other liquids is to find and remain level. 70% of the world is covered in level water, so how could Earth not be flat? The idea that our level oceans are somehow curved around and stuck to the underside of a spinning space-ball is the greatest deception in the history of mankind!"

School started the next morning with the bell ringing and Mr. Tyson dropping his microphone. "Why did the microphone fall to the floor? Anyone?" he asked, looking around the room. When satisfied no one would answer, he continued, "It fell because of 'gravity,' a force created by large masses that causes other smaller masses to stick to them like a magnet. Because the Earth is so massive, it creates a gravitational pull which sucked the microphone down to the floor. This gravity is what keeps people, buildings, oceans and everything else stuck to our globe. Has anyone ever heard of Australia being called, 'the land down under?'"

A few students raised their hands as Mr. Tyson picked the globe off his desk and pointed underneath it.

"As you can see, Australia is literally a 'land down under' the globe, and 'gravity' is what keeps Australians from falling off the bottom of Earth!"

The class erupted in laughter as I sat quietly pondering the absurdity of Australians all upside-down being constantly sucked to the center of a globe so they wouldn't fall off. How could gravity be so strong that it keeps people, buildings and entire oceans stuck to the underside of a spinning globe, yet weak enough that smoke and steam, tiny birds and bugs can escape its grasp, and rise or fly with ease? How could gravity be so strong that it curves and holds the oceans onto a ball, yet weak enough that it doesn't cause even a lily-pad or floating leaf to sink?

Mr. Tyson drew a large, medium and small circle on the blackboard to represent the Sun, Earth and Moon, then continued his explanation.

"The Sun is the most massive object in our solar system so it creates the biggest gravitational pull. The Earth is smaller than the Sun, but larger than the Moon, so gravity causes the Earth to orbit around the Sun, while causing the Moon to orbit the Earth." 

"Wait a minute!" I quickly raised my hand and interrupted. "Before you said gravity caused smaller masses to stick to larger masses. Now you're saying it causes smaller masses to orbit around larger masses! Which one is it, Mr. Tyson? And how does gravity decide when to spin things in circles and when to suck things like a magnet!?"

"It just does, you pesky boy!"

When I got home from school and told grandpa all about "gravity" he insisted it was time for us to take another field-trip. After grabbing a big bucket and globe from his shed, we headed out to the city center, stopping just out front the United Nations building where there stood a large stone fountain shaped like a map of the world. In the very middle positioned at the North Pole was a flag pole flying the UN flag.

"Sometimes the truth is most easily hidden in plain sight," grandpa said. "This here flag and fountain show a more true map and model of Earth than anything they're teaching you in school, my boy. The fountain water representing the oceans at sea-level is fully contained and lays perfectly flat. Meanwhile the continents protrude up from sea-level giving us a practical, tactile, working model of Earth's land and water."

"Now compare that with this," grandpa said holding his globe in one hand and a bucket full of fountain water in the other. He then poured the water over the globe and we watched as every last drop fell back to the fountain below.

"Water must be contained like in this bucket or in this fountain, and will stay within and conform to the interior shape of its container. However, water will never stick to or conform to the exterior of shapes like this globe. No matter how big the globe is, water will always fall off and people will be unable to stand anywhere but on top. Even Spaceship Earth at Disney's Epcot Center, 18 stories tall and 16 million pounds, the largest geodesic sphere ever constructed, cannot create one iota of its own 'gravity,' or cause even a golf ball to stick to or orbit around it. You see, this theoretical force that sucks everything towards the center of large masses was needed to explain how water could bend around a ball-Earth and keep people from falling off the bottom. The problem is, for a theory to be proven, it must be observable, measurable, repeatable, and scalable. Yet, after 400 years since Newton's theory, bendy water nor this magical sucking force is anywhere observable, measurable or repeatable, and even the largest-scale sphere ever constructed fails to behave as they claim their spherical Earth does. It's quite convenient to claim the natural physics of water somehow changes at a scale too large to recreate, but it's not science."

"Long before the theory of gravity was a glimmer in Newton's imagination, the natural physics of density and buoyancy already perfectly explained why apples fall down. Quite simply, objects fall or rise based on their relative density to the medium surrounding them. Apples fall because they are denser than the air, while helium balloons rise because they are lighter - no 'gravity' necessary. This is why raindrops fall down through the air and air-bubbles rise up through water! Everything seeks its relative density and rises or falls until settling accordingly. This is why a tiny pebble sinks to the bottom of the ocean, but gigantic cruise-ships and aircraft carriers stay afloat on the surface, because even though a pebble is so small, its mass relative to its volume (its density) is more than water, so it sinks, and even though a cruise-ship is so large, its mass relative to its volume is less than water, so it floats.

If Newton's apple had landed in a puddle instead of on his head, he would have seen the apple only fell through the air because it was denser than the air, but then floated on top of the water because it was less dense than water. Have you ever noticed how it’s easier to stay afloat with your lungs full of air than it is when they're empty? Submarines float on the surface when their ballast tanks are filled with air, but when the vents are opened and seawater floods in, they begin to sink as the submarine's density becomes greater than water. Depending what depth they wish to dive, sailors simply adjust the ratio of air/water in the tanks, and when ready to re-surface they blow compressed air into the tanks forcing the seawater out, lowering the density, and thus causing them to rise back to the surface.

We can also prove this fact of relative density by filling a balloon with approximately half helium and half air. Since helium is lighter than the oxygen, nitrogen and other gases that compose the air around us, filling a balloon with just the right amount of helium to compensate for and balance out the density of the plastic results in a 'gravity-defying' levitating balloon at equilibrium that neither rises nor falls!"

"Come on down, my boy!" grandpa said, waving me toward the docks. "Not only do submarines prove gravity doesn't exist, they prove the oceans are flat too!" Grandpa saluted a naval officer and led me aboard the largest submarine I had ever seen. We entered the control room and grandpa pointed out several maps and charts laying on the table. "Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the oceans are completely flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies, but in fact plane navigation methods have worked perfectly in theory and practice for thousands of years." 

"Have a look through these," grandpa said excitedly pulling down two periscopes. "Regular observational periscopes are able to see ships about 7 or 8 miles away, while special targeting periscopes equipped with high-tech zoom capability can see ships twice or thrice as far where they should be invisible blocked beneath hundreds of feet of Earth's alleged curvature. Submarines set their depth below sea-level then travel for distances of hundreds or thousands of miles without changing their inclination whatsoever. If the Earth were truly a sphere, however, submarines would have to periodically dip their noses downward every few miles to maintain the same depth, otherwise they would always be accidentally re-surfacing due to the ocean's curvature!"  Grandpa grabbed my hand and led me through the torpedo and sonar rooms. "Subs are equipped with long-range torpedoes such as the Blackshark and F21 which can hit straight-line targets over 30 miles away, but if the Earth were truly a globe of given proportions, these torpedo targets would be hidden behind a 600 foot wall of curved Earth. Modern Navy rail guns now have the ability to bulls-eye straight-line targets 120 miles away! Yet on a globe-Earth of given proportions, such targets would be blocked by 9600 feet, or over a mile and a half of curvature. Last but not least, sonar arrays on the bow, stern, port and starboard send and receive radar signals in all directions, active sonar to about 30 miles and passive sonar up to an incredible 1000 miles! On a globe-Earth of given proportions, these sonar signals should be undetectable hidden by over 100 miles of supposed curvature."

Back at school the next day, my brain reeling from the week's revelations, Mr. Tyson wheeled in a television for us to watch a cosmos documentary showing beautiful pictures and videos of the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and planets all shaped like multi-colored billiard balls spinning around, satellites, telescopes, space stations, and astronauts free-floating in outer-space, remote-controlled rovers on Mars, even men walking, jumping, go-karting and golfing on the Moon. While the other students sat mesmerized cooing "oohs" and "ahhs" at every new image, I kept thinking about something my grandpa once said about pink unicorns:

"If I told you I had pink unicorns in my shed, would you believe me?" he asked. I shook my head. "You wouldn't and shouldn't believe me because people can lie. If I showed you pictures of some pink unicorns in my shed, would you believe me then?" I shook my head again. "You still wouldn't and shouldn't believe me because pictures can be faked. What if I showed you high-definition videos of pink unicorns in my shed, then would you believe?" I shook my head once again. "You still wouldn't and shouldn't believe me because videos too can be faked!" 

Grandpa's point was we shouldn't just believe second-hand information and should confirm and experience everything for ourselves first-hand. Then we know the truth rather than just believe, and as grandpa always said, "belief is just a substitute for knowing." With his words echoing through my head, I began noticing how fake the beautiful pictures of Earth were, how they were clearly computer-generated images and not actual photographs. The color, size and shape of the land and water masses differed so drastically between pictures that they couldn't possibly be real. The more critically I examined the supposed pictures of Earth from space, the more they reminded me of grandpa's pink unicorns.

"Have a look at this, my boy!" Grandpa called me into the study and pointed to his computer screen. The same footage I had seen at school of men on the Moon was playing, only this time with the speed doubled. My jaw slowly dropped as it became clear the astronauts were actually walking, jumping, go-karting and golfing on Earth, but edited at half-speed to give a "low-gravity" illusion!

"Now watch this," grandpa said clicking forward to several short scenes where we could clearly see overhead wires attached to the astronaut's backpacks! "They even used the same backdrops over and over," grandpa said showing me video and photo overlays of the exact same hills, dunes and craters appearing at supposedly different locations on the "Moon." There were also clear dividing lines on the floor between the foreground and backdrops, lens flares and diverging shadows from multiple light sources, even overhead spotlights reflecting off astronaut's visors, all proving the footage was filmed in a studio.

"We can expose their photo-trickery now using Photoshop," grandpa said opening several of NASA's official photographs of Earth taken from the Moon. "Just adjust the brightness and contrast levels a bit and look what happens!" As grandpa increased the brightness and lowered the contrast, rectangular artifacts suddenly appeared around the "Earth" proving them to be doctored images cut and pasted into place. Other pictures we adjusted showed shadows being cast onto the blackness of "space," again proving they were in a room with black walls/ceilings, and not actually on the Moon.

"Now look at these cloud patterns," grandpa said pointing to NASA's Blue Marble Earth picture, "what do you notice?" At first nothing, but then it became all I could see: the same cloud patterns were at several places all over the Earth! Not similar cloud patterns, but the exact same clouds copied and pasted into place! "I'll tell you what my boy," grandpa said tapping his temple, "the only thing NASA ever sent to space is our imagination."

Grandpa pointed out the office window to the afternoon waxing gibbous Moon. "Notice how you can see the blue sky right through it? That's because the Moon is not a solid, opaque, dirt-ball capable of stepping foot on; it is merely a translucent luminary, a light. For centuries confused establishment astronomers have written about seeing stars and planets clearly shining right through the dark body of waxing and waning Moons. In fact, a star occulting the crescent Moon has long been a popular symbol of Islam and is found on national flags from Algeria and Pakistan to Singapore, Tunisia, and Turkey. These same confused astronomical experts tell us the Moon has no light of its own and simply reflects the Sun's light, but this is also provably incorrect as the two lights have altogether different and opposing properties. For example, the Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative, antiseptic, decreases fire combustion, and prevents plant and animal substances from decomposition, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying, septic, increases fire combustion and causes plant and animal substances to decay. These two very different and opposing effects cannot be the result of mere reflection, however, and prove that the Sun and Moon both shine with their own unique lights." 

Later that evening grandpa and I set-up an experiment to test if moon-light really was cold. We placed a glass of water in direct moon-light and another in the moon-shade, then used digital thermometers to record both the air and water temperatures in moon-light vs. moon-shade. For the entire night both the moon-light air and water remained between one and two full degrees colder than the air and water in moon-shade. "If done during a full-moon the results are greater," grandpa said, "but this should suffice to prove the Moon produces its own cool light. Astronomers claim the Moon is a solid spherical body that reflects sun-light, but the fact is reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If the reflector's surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection. So, in other words, it's impossible that man has ever or could ever set foot on the Moon because it's not terra firma like Earth, but rather a luminary, like the Sun, shining with its own unique light."

The next morning marked the start of a long weekend and grandpa woke me early from a sound sleep saying, "We're going on an epic adventure, my boy!" Grandma had my bags already packed in the truck with breakfast-to-go and waved goodbye as we sped off towards the airport. Upon arrival, grandpa was greeted with warm smiles, salutes, and good mornings from all the pilots we walked past. "Today, we're going to see for ourselves and prove the Earth plane with my Earth Plane!" grandpa exclaimed proudly pointing to the tail of his single-engine open-cockpit plane. "I named her 'The Earth Plane' for the double-meaning," he said grinning. "Why do you think they're called air-'planes' and not air-planets or air-globes? Because they're not flying over a 'planet' or a 'globe,' they're flying over a plane!" 

We climbed in the cockpit, geared-up, strapped in, and prepared for take-off. As we picked up speed, grandpa yelled for me to pay attention to the horizon and not take my eyes off it. We lifted from the runway and watched the horizon slowly rising up with us and extending outwards further and further the higher we went. "Keep watching!" grandpa yelled as he pulled back the yoke and we continued to climb higher and higher. The horizon kept rising right along with us remaining perfectly flat and level 360 degrees around. "We're almost at maximum height now," grandpa said still pulling back the yoke when suddenly the engine stalled, everything went silent, and the plane started to nose-dive! "Uh oh!" grandpa said fumbling at the controls. Just as I began to panic, I saw a thin smile cross grandpa's lips, then he restarted the engine, leveled the plane again, turned to me and winked.

When we landed grandpa explained, "if the horizon was actually the curvature of a globe, no matter how large, it would remain at a fixed height, and we would have to gradually tilt our heads down more the higher we ascended to view it. In reality, however, no matter how high you go, the horizon rises right with your eyes and remains flat. In fact, amateur balloons with cameras have been sent 10 times higher than we just went, over 120,000 feet or 20 miles up, and the flat horizon rises all the way up. The only time you'll ever see a curved horizon is through fish-eyed lenses or curved commercial airplane windows."

After finishing our hot chocolate, grandpa handed me a small spirit-level and we headed back to the Earth Plane for another experiment. Pointing at the instrument panel, he said, "this is called an attitude indicator or an artificial horizon; it uses a gyroscope to track the pilot's orientation relative to Earth's horizon. So when we lift-off and start gaining altitude, the indicator will pitch up and the bubble in your spirit-level will rise forward away from you. Once we reach cruising altitude, I will level the plane, and both the artificial horizon and your spirit-level will confirm this. We will continue to fly perfectly straight and level due south all night long, then tomorrow morning I will decrease altitude, the indicator will pitch down and the bubble in your spirit-level will fall backward towards you until landing then level off again. If we were really flying over a globe and not a level plane Earth I would have to regularly dip the nose decreasing altitude to compensate for the globe's curvature or else would find myself regularly gaining altitude simply by flying level! This is absurd, as no pilot in history has ever experienced gaining altitude by simply flying level, but this is what must happen if we lived on a globe!" 

Grandpa grabbed a pen and paper to help explain. First he drew a big circle to represent the globe, then he made a straight line tangent to it to represent the path of a plane flying level, and lastly put several straight dotted vertical lines perpendicular to the tangent showing the exponential gain in altitude that should occur if we were really flying over a globe. "If Earth is a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, and we fly over it level at 200mph, in 30 minutes Earth should curve downwards over a mile; and in an hour, we should find ourselves nearly 5 miles higher altitude than we started simply by flying perfectly level! Let's see what really happens." 

Grandpa fastened the spirit-level next to my seat, patted me on the head and jumped into the cockpit. As we took off, the bubble in my spirit-level rose forward and the gyro-horizon pitched up, just like grandpa said. Then we reached cruising altitude and grandpa leveled off the plane bringing the bubble, real and artificial horizons all back to the center where they remained for hours until I finally fell asleep. The next morning when I woke up, after traveling thousands of miles, we were still flying level and at the exact same altitude proving Earth couldn't possibly be a globe curving downwards away from us.

"Can you imagine landing if that runway was really moving 1000 miles per hour!?" Grandpa chuckled lowering the landing gear. "If the Earth was really constantly spinning Eastward 1000 miles every hour, it would be impossible for airplanes to land on runways facing all manner of directions North, South, East, West and every way in between." Grandpa touched-down gently and parked the plane for re-fueling.

"Back in the 18th century, when the hot-air balloon was invented, people asked why, if the Earth was constantly spinning, couldn't they simply hover in place and wait for their Eastward destinations to arrive under them? The pseudo-scientists of their time claimed this was impossible because the magical force of gravity somehow pulled the entire atmosphere and their balloons perfectly along with the Earth! This was and is completely against any science, logic or common sense mind you, but when men of presumed authority make presumptuous authoritative statements, they are rarely questioned. If the Earth and atmosphere were constantly spinning 1000mph Eastwards, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measurable by someone, yet no one in history has ever done so; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest 1mph Westward breeze. Such non-sensical theories are debunked by clouds, wind, weather patterns, rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning faster than the speed of sound! Seriously, my boy, can you imagine sideways rain falling at the equator, or upside-down planes landing in Australia!?" Grandpa and I laughed at such a ridiculous thought.

"Around the turn of the 20th century, the ball-Earth pseudo-scientists were conclusively proven wrong upon the invention of the airplane. You see, if the Earth were constantly spinning Eastwards 1000mph at the equator then airplane flight durations Eastwards vs. Westwards would be significantly different. Since the average commercial airliner travels 500mph, it follows that Westbound equatorial flights should reach their destination approximately three times faster than their Eastbound return flights! In reality, however, the differences in East/Westbound flight durations usually amount to a matter of minutes, and nothing near what would occur on a 1000mph spinning ball Earth. For example, commercial flights from Quito, Ecuador traveling Eastwards 2000 miles to Macapa, Brazil, at 500mph, take an average of 4 hours, so the return flights Westward going against the alleged 1000mph spin of the Earth should be significantly shorter, but in reality take the exact same 4 hours, just as expected on a stationary Earth."

That evening we set-up camp in the woods near the airfield, pitched a tent, unrolled our sleeping bags, and roasted marshmallows on a bon-fire. Grandpa was teaching me how to make them golden brown without burning them, when suddenly he went silent and smiled to himself. With a glint in his eye and a s'more in his mouth, grandpa told me about the last time he taught someone the fine art of marshmallow roasting. "It was your grandmother and I's honeymoon to the Arctic, which we've always called our 'honeysun' because we stayed up all night to watch the never-setting Midnight Sun."

"What is the Midnight Sun?" I asked, as my marshmallow caught on fire.

Grandpa swiftly snagged my stick and blew out my blackened failure. "The Midnight Sun is what you can see in Northern regions above the Arctic circle during and around the Summer Solstice. For several days or even weeks (depending where you are) you can watch the Sun travel 360 degrees around you slowly rising and falling every 12 hours, but never fully setting below the horizon! This is because at the Summer Solstice the Sun reaches its inner-most circuit directly over the Tropic of Cancer, allowing observers situated centrally in the Arctic circle to see the Sun make its complete 24 hour circuit without ever leaving the sky. Your grandmother and I witnessed 3 days without darkness, 72 hours of daylight, which would be impossible on a tilting, wobbling, spinning globe Earth. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning ball at any point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! Anyone below the poles could never witness the Sun for 72 hours, 3 whole revolutions, straight because to do so would mean you are somehow seeing “through the globe” and to the Sun on the other side! The ball-Earth pseudo-scientists have tried to claim 24 hour sunlight also happens in Antarctica during the Winter Solstice to help bolster their wobbling ball model, but their only supposed evidence is a couple of clearly fake edited videos which have been thoroughly debunked. There is, in fact, never 24 hour sunlight anywhere in Antarctica because even when the Sun reaches its outer-most circuit over the Tropic of Capricorn, the entirety of the Antarctic circumference cannot be reached by its light at any one time, and so it will still set every day. The Royal Belgian Geographical Society even recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st. This would be impossible on a spinning space-ball wobbling around the Sun, and is yet another proof we live on a motionless level plane with the Sun, Moon and stars all revolving over and around us, just as we experience every day."

After almost another full day of flying, it was getting increasingly colder, and we made our final re-fueling stop at a lonely place called the Desolation Islands. As we walked along the sparse coast-line, grandpa unfolded a huge, detailed map called "Hammond's Air Age Map of the World," and pointed to our location. "Here at 49 degrees Southern latitude, we're nearing the coldest, harshest, most desolate climate on Earth: Antarctica." 

Grandpa traced his finger in a circle around the circumference of the map, then traced two more smaller concentric circles showing the path of the Sun throughout the year. "During its annual spiral journey over and around the Earth, the Sun slowly speeds up and widens its circular path for 6 months until reaching the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5 degrees South latitude. Then for the next 6 months, the Sun slows down and narrows its path until reaching the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 degrees North latitude. This is why equatorial and tropical regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. Here on the Desolation Islands there are only 18 species of native plants and a handful of animals that can survive the cold, hostile climate, compared to somewhere of equal 49 degrees Northern latitude, like the country of France, which has a very hospitable climate and is home to hundreds of native animals and thousands of native plants. The stark contrast between places of equal latitudes North and South is a direct result of the Sun's influence (or lack of influence) over them. In the North dawn and dusk are usually drawn-out beautiful scenes lasting over an hour each, whereas in the deep South dawn and dusk pass by in an instant, becoming bright as day or too dark to see in a matter of minutes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters due to the Sun's slower, tighter circles in the North, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice due to the Sun's swifter, wider circles it makes over the South. This results in Antarctica being by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of -57 degrees Fahrenheit in contrast to the average at the North Pole, a comparatively warm 4 degrees."

"So we're going to Antarctica?" I asked pulling my jacket hood over my sweatshirt hoodie over my ear-muffs over my hat.

"We're going beyond Antarctica, my boy!" Grandpa exclaimed pointing past the edge of the map.

Early the next morning, after flying all night over rough, dark seas, dawn arrived behind us and illuminated in front of us a huge 200-foot-high plateau of Antarctic ice extending outwards and onward as far as the eye could see. We continued flying south over Antarctica until lunch-time when Grandpa brought us down on a flat patch of ice near the South Pole.

"Why aren't we landing on the air-strip over there?" I asked pointing off in the distance.

"I'm afraid we don't have clearance to touch down over there, my boy. In fact, the Antarctic Treaty, a law signed by 53 countries and enforced by military, prohibits independent exploration of Antarctica, so if they catch us we'll be in trouble!" Grandpa winked and handed me a magnetic compass as we walked toward a tall red and white barber-shop pole sticking out of the ice.

"They say this here is the South Pole, but then contradict themselves by saying the true South Pole is actually constantly moving around somewhere in this vicinity. This is just a convenient and necessary excuse to maintain their lie. Because if Earth was really a big ball and we're standing on the bottom of that ball right now at the southern-most point, you should be able to walk in a circle with your back to the Pole and have the compass show North being in front of you in every direction." I walked a large circle with my back to the South Pole and North remained fixed in the direction we flew from no matter where I went.

"Think about it, if we're on the bottom of a ball right now, how could the compass point North!? North would be the top of the ball, so the needle would have to point down to your feet! North-facing compass needles at the South Pole must be pointing into outer-space!" Grandpa laughed. "The truth is they've just placed this red and white barber-shop pole at an arbitrary location here in Antarctica so rich people on their government-approved penguin-tours can get their pictures taken and claim they've been to the 'bottom of the world.' But as you can see from your compass reading, there's plenty more land South of the South Pole that doesn't exist anywhere on the globe!" We gazed southwards from the South Pole at the massive expanse of mountainous ice ahead of us. "This land doesn't exist on any known map. It could go on forever for all we know. Perhaps there are other Earth-ponds beyond, or maybe there is some solid barrier like a dome that contains us. I have been wondering and wanting to know what exists South of the South Pole for my whole life. Let's go find out!"

As we climbed back into the Earth Plane preparing for take-off, an emergency message came over the radio accusing us of unauthorized landing in Antarctica, and warning that our craft would be shot down if we didn't turn back immediately! Grandpa sat still for a second, shut his radio off, turned to me and said, "We'll only get one chance at this, my boy, and we've come too far to go back without any answers!" Grandpa fired the engine up and we lifted-off heading South at top-speed. Within minutes a group of military jets began tailing us closely and the look on his face changed from nervous excitement to frustrated despair. Our plane's top speed was no match. The jets closed in and began firing warning shots in our direction. Grandpa quickly attempted an evasive maneuver in hopes of losing them but it was useless. Another warning shot came close enough that we could hear it whizzing by our heads, and that was the last straw. With watery eyes grandpa banked 180 degrees and began heading back. The military escort directed us toward the air-strip I'd seen earlier, forced us to land, then arrested grandpa and led him away into a locked windowless room for hours. When he finally came back out, grandpa said since he had also served in the military, they only gave him a slap on the wrist, but could have been penalized with fines and jail-time for what we did. 

That evening before beginning our long flight back home, grandpa told me something that would change my entire life from that moment forward. Sitting on a couple crates by the tarmac and sharing a meal of rice and beans on paper plates, he turned to me with sad eyes, an upside-down frown, and said, "you're old enough to know the truth now, my boy. Remember your grandma and I told you how your father was a great pilot and your mother a daring explorer?" My ears perked up at the rare mention of my parents. "And how when you were very little, their plane was lost during an expedition?" I nodded my head. "I never told you, but I was with them, and the expedition was right here. I was flying solo in the Earth Plane, and your parents were together in your father's identical Earth Plane 2. We all shared a passion for truth and wanted to explore the lands South of the South Pole so we decided to go for it. Just like today, military crafts began tailing us shortly after passing the pole, sending emergency messages over the radio, and firing warning shots. Knowing your father was the better pilot, I drew their fire and led them off due west while your father and mother continued speeding South. Two jets followed me, but another three stayed tailing your parent's plane, and that was when I lost track of them. The last thing I heard was your father's brave voice crackling over the radio adamantly saying, "we have the right to full exploration of Earth and you have no right to stop us!"

Nobody ever heard from my parents again. There were no news reports, no obituaries, no death certificates, and all official inquiries into the incident were met with denial. Grandpa and I held hope that they succeeded in escaping to undiscovered lands, but it seemed more and more unlikely every year that passed, since if they did survive, surely they would come back home. 

It has been thirty years since my grandpa took me on that fateful flight. I decided then and there to make it my life's mission to discover the truth, and I wouldn't repeat the same mistakes of my parents and grandparents. A grand conspiracy spanning five centuries, brainwashing the entirety of humanity, and protected by advanced military technology, could not be defeated by a single man. Only if a critical mass became awakened and active in exposing the deception could the truth be known and full exploration achieved. So I set out to make the biggest noise I could about our Earth Plane. I talked about it to everyone I met. I made posters, stickers, signs and stamps, created websites, blogs, documentaries, and articles, posted pictures, videos, memes and maps on forums and social medias. Slowly more and more people began questioning reality, thinking critically, and realizing the lies. I began writing books, doing podcasts, radio interviews, and making music all about our Earth Plane. I even wrote a children's book called, "The Earth Plane," to help our poor youngsters understand how they are being lied to. Finally, I went to school to become a pilot like my father and grandfather, and when I could afford it, bought my very own Earth Plane 3.  Now, tens of millions have awakened to the reality of our Earth Plane and they are hard at work spreading the word even further! Humanity is ready for the truth and today we will discover it! Myself and hundreds more pilots and sailors have organized an entire fleet of "Earth Planes" and "Earth Ships" simultaneously heading South from all longitudes to fully explore Antarctica and beyond! They cannot stop us all, and many members of the military are on our side. They have even promised to give stand-down orders to allow us through undisturbed. Today, is the culmination of my family's brave efforts to free humanity. Today pseudo-science and its minions like Mr. Tyson will fall and the truth will be known to all!

Eric Dubay

The Earth Plane- children book