# The Importance of Perspective In Understanding the Flat Earth Model, part 2

## Ships Climbing Both Ways

From the booklet: **The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions: or Modern Theoretical Astronomy**

1918

*Note: Punctuation and grammar is as in the original.*

fig. 12

In figure 11 we have shown an illustratio used to support the false perspective, and flase teaching, of the schools; but while some of the higher class astronomical books do not disgrace their pages with such a palpable monstronsity, their teachings are in agreement therewith, and some of their diagrams equally faulty.

Let an observer be placed on some small island in mid-ocean, as represented in figure 12, where he can watch ships sail away from him in opposite directions: now if figure 11 be a true picture of the surface shape of the sea, and the observer on turning round sees a similar rise of the water on opposite sides, then the surface of the ocean would consist of a series of bulges, continued *ad* *infinitum*, as indicated by figure 12!

STILL MOUNTING UPWARDS

fig. 13

Now let there be a series of observers, as implied in figure 13: the first observer on the right sees the vessel mount hill number one. At this point let there be another observer watching the same ship going in the same direction; he should see it mount up hill number two. And a third observer, similarly placed, should see the vessel still mounting up hill number three; and so on, up towards the moon! This would agree with the theory that the moon temporarily attracts the waters of the ocean – but who would trust himself to that theory to make the voyage?

We may well leave the theory of a globular sea to the reprobation of all honest thinkers. Yet Sir Robert Ball, in comon with some other astronomers, maintains that an observer on the seashore, in watching a receding vessel, actually views it mounting a hill, or a “protruberant” part of the ocaen, until it reaches the horizon, when it begins to descent! If the sea-earth were a globe, the observer should always be placed on the top, near the sea-level; and the receding ship should at once begin to descent. But as perspective requires objects below the eye-line to appear to rise in the distance, the globularist is thus unconsciously constrained to yield this testimony as a concession to truth!

CURVATURE OR DIP

fig. 14

In calculating the amount of curvature, or dip below the eye-line of the observer, we have a smile rule, ignoring some small decimal points, namely: – Square the number of miles given as the distane, and multiply the product by eight inches, and divide by twelve, which will give in feet the depth of the dip from the obserer’s line of sight. This is true for a globe of 25,000 miles circumference; thus in six miles there would be a dip of 24 feet, and in twelve miles a dip of 96 feet.

But in calculating the depth of the dip, zetetics often have made an unnecessary concession to the globularist, by deducting from the distance the object the place of the point where the eye-line is supposed to move *downwards* to touch the earth, or the level of the water. This is a concession to the false views of perspective given in school books, such as we have illustrated in our fig. 11, and to which the student can turn. Yet in spite of this unnecessary concession, zetetics have shown that distant objects are often visible when they ought to be out of sight, and a long way below the horizon, if the sea be globular!

If we turn to the laws of true perspective, as already given, we shall see that this deduction is not only unnecessary, but that, moreover, the height of the observer should be in strictness be added to the amount of dip.

Let us turn to fig 14 to illustrate the fact. Let the point E represent the position of the observer on the sea-level; his line of sight would be tangent to the sphere at the place of observation, as shewn by line E H, and the dip of an object at J would be represented by the line H J. now raise the observer to the height of the telescope at F; and parallel to E H, therefore the dip from G to J is manifestly greater than that from H to J. and this is true whether we reckon the dip towards the centre of the globe in the direction of G L, or at right-angles from the line of sight G M.