Seeing too far...

 The second line of evidence that Garcia references in the court case involves people seeing too far. In other words, they see things that should be blocked by Earth’s curve. For a believer in the Globe, one would think it would be straightforward to find something in the distance that should not be visible because it is below Earth’s curve. This simply requires having the appropriate camera or telescope. The physical curvature should block the object. Shouldn’t there be a great abundance of these cases, well documented and replicated, to put the Flat Earth debate to an end?

But the reverse seems to happen repeatedly, which is perhaps one of the reasons why more and more people are expressing skepticism of the Globe. People buy high-resolution cameras, telescopes, or binoculars and see distant objects that should be physically blocked by the curve. The counterargument from Globe  believers is that those things are only visible because the light refracts and creates a “mirage.” Or they claim that the curvature math was incorrect or that the viewer’s height was unclear (which would affect the viewable angle).

“Seeing too far” would inherently refute the radius value of Earth and thus debunk the Globe as it is currently conceived. But technically it would not totally debunk the concept of a spherical shape; it would simply debunk the idea that Earth is a sphere with a specific radius value. The shape could still be a sphere—just a sphere that has a much, much greater radius value than what the Globe model currently asserts. That would still reflect a radical departure from modern cosmological thinking because of the ripple effects on all other Globe assumptions discussed earlier.

Sometimes, however, no special equipment is needed, and people can still see too far (according to the Globe’s assumed radius value). Garcia references cases in which people can see New York’s Statue of Liberty on a clear day from up to sixty miles away, while it should be well below the curve. Similarly, he cites residents of Oahu, Hawaii, who can regularly see the island of Kauai from more than ninety miles away.

He also mentions one of the most famous cases that was picked up by South Bend, Indiana’s ABC57 local news in 2015. The article, titled “Mirage of Chicago skyline seen from Michigan shoreline,” reports: “A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. [Photographer] Joshua Nowicki snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon from that vantage point, but the image of the skyline can be seen above it.”15

Garcia remarks in the court document:

[The news report] was proven false, by two of my colleagues, Rob Skiba and Rick Hummer. These gentlemen went to Chicago and made a video documentary, confirming that one can…see the picturesque Chicago  cityscape from the side of lake Michigan where Joshua took his picture. They then rode across Lake Michigan in a boat, while filming the entire duration, the city growing in scope and size as one came nearer to it. This documentary affirmed without a doubt that one could, in fact, see the Chicago skyline from such distance and that it was not as the [news’] weatherman claimed a mirage.

He also interviewed several natives from that area, who all shared conclusively that seeing the Chicago skyline from such distance was a normal and daily possibility and that the only things which could skew in some slight manner such viewing, would be inclement weather, but that more or less it was…possible to see the entire cityscape even when in windy conditions and choppy waves from the opposite shores of Lake Michigan.16

Additional Instances of “Seeing Too Far”

Separate from Zen Garcia’s court victory, many other examples have been observed and cited.17 For instance, Austin Whitsitt has more recently referenced some striking examples in a 2024 presentation.

Before discussing the examples, however, it’s first important to understand the notion of “the horizon.” In the Globe worldview, the horizon is a physical location; it’s where Earth curves down and away from the viewer and literally blocks the viewer’s vision. What’s blocked from view can change with altitude, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Globe implies a physical horizon created by the curve. Since the Globe model assumes we’re on a spherical object, we are always perceiving ourselves to be at the “top” of the sphere from our perspective, meaning that the sphere is always moving down and away relative to us.

On a Flat Earth, the horizon is only apparent based on a vanishing point with respect to one’s visual “perspective” (as discussed in the previous chapter). The Flat Earth horizon actually moves around based on factors such as atmospheric conditions and  perspective. This can be seen in time-lapse videos of the horizon itself; it moves up and down.18

In his presentation, Whitsitt provides a video example in which the horizon is observed to be much farther than it should be based on the Globe’s assumed radius value. The video zooms in on oil rigs at sea, from the beach, and taken at a height of about a foot and a half off the ground. Whitsitt notes that the physical horizon should be under two miles from the camera at its height, based on the Globe’s assumptions. The farthest oil rig is about ten miles away…and the horizon can be seen clearly behind it. The horizon “should be” about two miles away, but it’s not. It is clearly behind something that’s roughly ten miles away. This means that the horizon is much, much more distant than it should be based on the Globe model’s math. And since the horizon is a physical location in the Globe model, this should not be possible—unless the Globe model’s radius value is simply incorrect. As Whitsitt says, “People will make all kinds of excuses, but it doesn’t matter. It’s basic geometry. The horizon [in the Globe model] has to be in front of the oil rigs. [There’s] no magical invocation of refraction [that Globe-Earth believers can point to]. This right here refutes the Globe….This is why Flat-Earthers exist: they went and looked at the Earth.”19 [emphasis added]

Whitsitt gives additional examples that he feels challenge the Globe’s radius value. The examples, and Whitsitt’s case as to why they’re important, are as follows:

❍Mountains 255 miles away from an observer at a height of 9,824 feet are seen, even though there should be 12,800 feet (more than two miles) of curvature blocking the view of the mountains. In other words, they should be far below the curve, and yet they are visible. The image is taken using infrared, which is significant because infrared mitigates the effect of refraction of light. Refraction is the standard Globe-based rebuttal. In other words, this observation is seemingly impossible on the Globe.20

 ❍The longest line of sight observation in the Guinness Book of World Records is 275 miles away (taken in 2019 by Gaspard Picard in Mallemort, France). “Line of sight” refers to observations that are directly from the observer’s eyes to the object that’s viewed without any obstructions. In this example, the observer views mountains from an altitude of 9,251 feet (roughly 1.75 miles). The mountains should be more than three miles below Earth’s curve, but they are visible.21

❍The Canigou mountain in the South of France is observed, two days every year, with the sunset behind the mountain. In the video that Whitsitt shows, the mountain is not visible until the Sun sets behind it, effectively backlighting it so the mountain is clearly visible from long distances. The mountain should be far below Earth’s curvature, according to the official Earth curve online calculator that Whitsitt used. The Globe advocate’s standard rebuttal is that refraction makes the mountain visible. However, because the Sun is behind the mountain, what is seen is a silhouette. Whitsitt alleges that this effective “shadow” is the absence of light, and since refraction is the bending of light, refraction should not explain this observation. Certainly refraction is a continued point of contention, but the observation of the mountain alone is noteworthy. Whitsitt remarks that Globe advocates claim this is just an “illusion,” and the mountain is not actually there. He calls this example “a direct falsification of the Globe.”22❍“Mirror flashes” have been done over twenty or twenty-five miles. This involves placing a mirror on, say, a beach, and the mirror reflects light. Then the observer moves far away from the beach where there is a direct line of sight. The mirror, and the light it reflects, should be under a substantial amount of curvature at far distances. But that’s not what is observed. The mirror flashes reach the observer at great distances. Whitsitt notes that the  military has used this method because it’s a silent form of communication.23

❍In a separate presentation, Whitsitt references long-distance laser tests of more than thirty miles, over a large body of water. The laser is also viewed from the side that shows it’s completely horizontal and parallel to the water—that is, the laser isn’t refracting and coincidentally “curving over the Globe.”24The beauty of examples like these is that anyone can try to replicate them, and that goes for government agencies as well. Hopefully, over time, more clarity will develop as additional trials are conducted and replicated with ample documentation.

Comedian Owen Benjamin brings some levity to the situation with his cartoon skit called “Globe Earth Sniper.” The sniper is hiding in the bushes, trying to shoot an enemy that he sees far away in the distance, but he constantly asks his compatriot in battle about adjusting for the Coriolis Effect (that is, Earth’s rotation on the Globe). He thinks that the enemy he sees far away is just a mirage because he should be below Earth’s curve.

His fellow sniper says: “We only have one shot at this guy [the enemy]. [Aim] a little left.”

Globe Earth Sniper replies: “Okay, now factor in the spin [of Earth]….What direction are we? East, west, north, south, northeast? Factor in everything! We need to know exactly the direction, the spin of the Earth and how to combat it or else….”

His colleague urges him to just take the shot, to which Globe Earth Sniper responds: “But that would mean Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong.” His colleague urges him to shoot accurately because a miss would blow their cover on their covert location.

Globe Earth Sniper insists: “Tell me the spin of the Earth!” He then shoots and misses and says, “I guess [Earth] was spinning a little faster than I thought!”

 He then says: “I can see the mirage,” to which his colleague responds with urgency, “No, no, that’s the target [the enemy you’re supposed to shoot at]!”

Globe Earth Sniper insists: “It must be a mirage. I’ve done the calculation [of Earth’s curvature]; I wouldn’t be able to see him. It’s a mirage. I’m not taking the shot.” His colleague says: “It’s him!” and urges him to just shoot.25

The skit continues, but the point is well made that when thinking practically about some of the Globe advocates’ counterarguments, they seem like silly post hoc rationalizations. We experience the world one way and are told that it functions in another way.

Ships Disappearing “over the Horizon” but Brought Back into Sight with Cameras

One of Aristotle’s famous “proofs” of a Globe, which is still used often today, was that when looking out at a large body of water, ships would disappear, hull before masts.26Visual perspective can explain this without invoking the Globe model. Simply put, there is a vanishing point in our vision. But explaining why the hull (bottom) drops before masts (the tall part) requires a more technical analysis. The answer has to do with “angular resolution.” The angle of vision determines what “disappears”—and lower objects will disappear first due to the viewing angle. The viewing angle thus creates the obstruction. Using more technical terminology from the field of optics, at a certain distance, an object reaches the “Rayleigh criterion” (that is, the diffraction limit). This hinders the ability to resolve details, and it’s most apparent at low viewing angles. Thus, objects disappear “bottom up.”27

However, Aristotle didn’t have cameras like the Nikon 900, as we do today. So, many Globe Skeptics use these high-resolution cameras to zoom in when a boat “disappears” over the horizon. Thus, the camera alters the angular resolution, and the boat comes back into view. This implies that the boat is still on a level surface;  it’s simply beyond view from the naked eye. This is said to occur repeatedly, even when the distant object should be “beneath the curve.” Many such videos are available online. They show that the ship goes in and out of view with high-resolution cameras (see David Weiss’s Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app, under the Frequently Asked Questions “Ships over the Horizon” playlist).

This phenomenon is another one that could use rigorous documentation and replication. But even if cases were published, one might wonder if any scientific journals would be willing to publish such heresy in a Globe-dominated world. As noted by geocentric physicist Robert Bennett, PhD: “Peer review is now peer censorship.”28The Horizon Rises to Eye Level

The Globe model would predict that as a person rises in altitude, the curve of the physical horizon should be more and more visible. So Earth would appear to be bending down and away, in all directions, and more so with increased elevation. This is simply a matter of geometry; the curvature of Earth determines all of this since the horizon is a physical location within the Globe model. However, that’s not what happens. The horizon remains at eye level as one rises in altitude. Anyone can experience this when ascending on an airplane, for example.

This phenomenon is supportive of the Globe Skeptics’ view, which suggests that the horizon isn’t a physical location but instead reflects the vanishing point based on perspective. In fact, a seminal book for artists published in 1939, titled Perspective Made Easy by Ernest Norling, gives the following instruction for artists: “If we ascend in an airplane we shall find that the distant horizon rises with our height. It appears to remain at eye-level. This accounts for the peculiar basin-like appearance of the earth when viewed from a great height.”29Norling calls this “peculiar” because he assumes the Globe model is correct. But if that model is false, then the observations make sense.

 Steven A. Young, PhD, summarizes the situation well:

All that would be needed to prove the globe would be to film the horizon while going straight up in a balloon; it would start flat at eye level, then as you ascended, it would bend at the sides and curve down and away as you got higher up. But nobody has been able to reproduce this; even SpaceX, with all the dozens of rocket launches they claim to do, never produced this simple footage of the flat horizon continuously bending into a sphere; their cameras always point down at the rocket. We learn nothing about the cosmos from these experiments….There are several amateur high-altitude rockets that have shown [that] the horizon remains totally flat at eye level, and even one that appeared to get stuck in the firmament. Globe sticklers will claim that continuous raw amateur footage is fake, while holding strong that NASA’s piece-wise TV footage is all legit.30 [emphasis added]

It’s also worth mentioning two pre-NASA anecdotes. In 1931, scientist Auguste Piccard ascended to an altitude of 51,775 feet (almost ten miles) in a hydrogen balloon. He and his assistant, who traveled with him, reached the highest point recorded at that time. Popular Science magazine reported: “In the first half hour, the balloon shot upward nine miles. Through portholes, the observers saw the earth through copper-colored, then bluish, haze. It seemed a flat disk with an upturned edge.”31 In other words, he didn’t report a “down and away” curve but rather the reverse. [emphasis added]

In 1933, the USSR broke Piccard’s record by launching a balloon to an altitude of 60,095 feet. Popular Science magazine wrote about this one too: “Soaring in their airtight balloon gondola to a record-breaking height of 11.8 miles above the earth, the other day, three Russian aeronauts brought back the first scientific observations ever made at so great an altitude. Above their heads, the sky provided a striking spectacle; its color had turned a soft, deep violet, and almost devoid of the light-reflecting haze found  at lower levels. Looking down, they tried in vain to detect any curvature of the earth’s horizon.”32 [emphasis added]

15Coomes, “Mirage of Chicago skyline seen from Michigan shoreline,” https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline.

16As quoted in a legal document for Zen Garcia’s case (“Case No.: 2019 MV-1104”), available at the following link: https://rodscontracts.com/docs/legal/ThompsonVersusGarcia.pdf. For more information on this case study, see Rob Skiba, “The Chicago Skyline Expanded Edition–Part 1: Refraction, Magnification or Curvature?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Q-FuXJSTQ&t=1s.

17For instance, see Hamer, The Falsification of Science, 198-204; and Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth, 25–50.

18Whitsitt X account, June 4, 2024, https://x.com/Witsitgetsit/status/1798165881429668322?s=46&t=ijTvU_628uOjAUiS9U8Hxw,2:51:00. Also partially available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssCZXJrDxiQ (so the time stamps do not perfectly match).

19Ibid., 2:52:00.

20Ibid., 2:57:00–2:53:00.

21Ibid., 2:54:00.

22Ibid., 2:57:00–2:58:00.

23Ibid., 2:57:00–2:59:00.

24Anti-Disinfo Leauge [sic], “True Earth 101: Curvature,” https://www.bitchute.com/video/6nbYsiGpwAH9/, 5:00-6:00.

25RobinsHoodlum, “Globe Earth SNIPER ~ from Mountainbear,” https://rumble.com/v1hlc50-globe-earth-sniper-from-mountainbear.html.

26Garwood, Flat Earth, 20.

27Mitchell fromAustralia, “Flat Earth School – Why Objects Disappear Bottom Up,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVVbsekJ9Sg. Also see Witsit Gets It, “Schooling Globers – Episode 26,” https://www.youtube.com/live/FBKrYJ0YvUY, 1:59:00-2:00:00.

28Witsit Gets It, “In The Field – Robert Bennett Ph.D. – Part 1,” https://www.youtube.com/live/5j0wCrkzfwk, 2:11:00-2:12:00.

29Norling, Perspective Made Easy, 9.

30Young, A Fool’s Wisdom, 79–80.

31Odle, Like Clay Under the Seal, 100. Odle includes the image from the magazine itself that includes the text. It’s worth noting that Sungenis cites an alternative view in his book Flat Earth/Flat Wrong, p. 12. He cites a 2008 article in Applied Optics in which the author, David K. Lynch, writes: “The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931.” Sungenis cites this as if it’s contradictory evidence to the Popular Science quote about Piccard. Piccard saw “upturn” edges, not the downturn edges that would be expected on a Globe. So perhaps that is what Lynch was referring to. Otherwise, Lynch does not cite a primary source suggesting that Piccard saw downward curvature, beyond noting the following: “Piccard is widely believed to be the first. There are many references to his achievement on the Internet, most of them certainly derivative. I contacted the Piccard family and they were aware of the claim but had no hard evidence or literature citation backing it up.” Thus, the claim that Piccard actually saw downward curvature suggestive of a Globe seems unsubstantiated.

32Odle, Like Clay Under the Seal, 102. Odle includes an image from the primary source, as well.

An End to the Upside Down Cosmos

Rethinking the BigBang, Heliocentrism, the Lights in the Sky…and Where We Live

Mark Gober