Is Mother Earth Flat-Chested?

Richard Syrett, hosting the Conspiracy Show,  interviews Eric Dubay, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. His contention is that we live on a plane, not on a spherical planet. Like the beliefs of antiquity, he suggests that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe with everything revolving around us.

Now, I find it hard to believe, but his “proof” is quite compelling. But it is contrary to every thing I’ve been taught about space and how the universe works. It flies in the face of not only standard planetary models, but also in the Electric Universe theory that I have been researching for some time (which makes more sense than the official theory).

Dubay would love to debate a scientist, especially Neil deGrasse Tyson (which I would love to see). However, they need to bring on Wal Thornhill for a three way.

BTW: I think that David Talbot’s series Discourses of an Alien Sky explains so much about what the ancient inhabitants of this planet saw in the sky and why the various Petroglyphs, drawings and other ancient artwork represent this once bizarre planetary alignment. The strange things they saw are very different than what we see now.

This series, Discourses on an Alien Sky, begins an extended exploration of ancient cultural themes introduced in the documentary, Symbols of an Alien Sky. The subject is the ancient experience of towering celestial forms that are no longer present. From a single snapshot of the configuration, we can work backwards to the first appearance of these bodies out of an undifferentiated cloud or sea of dusty plasma. We can then follow the configuration’s evolution through phases that range from quasi-stability to earth shaking catastrophe. The foundation of this reconstruction is provided by the points of agreement between ancient cultures the world over.  Look below for a full list of Discourses on an Alien Sky videos.


Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

19 thoughts on “Is Mother Earth Flat-Chested?

  1. It is an interesting proposition, maybe worth thinking about, but reminds me of the human condition being in reverse instead of going forward. Imo, the earth centric universe has been put to rest a long time ago by Copernicus and Galileo.

    If Mr Dubay wants to present some real proof, he should take his i-phone, walk off the flat earth and try to haul himself up on the other side, keeping us posted on FB. Sorry, it just doesn’t make any sense to me to regress into medieval beliefs.

    And a trick question: What is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of iron? Same weight, but wait until you get hit with either. The iron is going to hurt. So there is a difference between mass and weight, he’s got that right. But that is high school physics.

    I just have to conclude: Humbug. The electrical universe makes a lot more sense.


    • I agree with your summary. But this theory seems to be growing (at least I am seeing it more). It doesn’t make much sense to me. What Wal Thornhill explains (and Dave Talbot) makes much more sense).

      But I am the guy that keeps saying they lie about EVERYTHING…

      So I had to put it out there, even though I don’t believe it.

      I was going to ask Brian from NTS on their radio show last night, but they ended up not having one. I’d like to have his input since he has studied similar topics before.

      Also note that Whitewraithe will be shutting down her blog as of June 1 (at least not posting any more).


      • I followed this topic at a forum called reactorbreach for several days.
        The back and forth between people there was very interesting.

        Yes they DO lie about everything…………so that is why I took a look at this topic too.
        The speed of the earth, the wind, the magical zone between the vacuum of space and our own atmosphere are not adequately explained by our NASA overlords.
        The UN map and the idea that the North pole is the ‘middle’ and the south pole is the outer boundary (sorry Mac, no sailing off the edge silliness) is very thought provoking.
        My main doubts come from the way this ‘idea’ is being rolled out like a new product launch. It reeks of some sort of hoax designed to suck well intentioned truth seekers into some sort of stupidity trap.
        But those who can swallow their pride and seriously research this idea, will be much more uncomfortable with what they find out than they realize before jumping in.
        Oddly enough, reactorbreach forum has been shut down for about a week after this topic was the hottest thing on their board.


        • There is no pride to swallow, pete. I just refuse to being hoodwinked by some people’s outlandish ideas they are putting ‘out there’. After all, it’s all about guesses and opinions since science has no real credibility anymore. They are just flying by the seats of their pants; who gives me the most money and I will give you the desired results.

          My take: Problem – Reaction – Solution in reverse.
          The goys are getting uppity.
          Let’s give them something else to chew on.
          Endless debates about nothing. – Problem solved.

          Here are two maps with a flight path from Vancouver, Canada to Amsterdam, Netherlands. I just picked them because I’m quite familiar with that route. One comes up with a straight line which is deceiving. The other one shows the real curved path the planes are taking. If the earth were flat, why would they do that?


          I know, BMan, this is stretching it for links, but I thought the iron-feather analogy removed from gravity into a vacuum chamber is quite interesting. The ball still seems to cause some damage.


  2. The point that provokes me is the old algebra “a plane traveling” thing. If the Earth is turning then flying west ought to be a whole lot quicker than flying east. I’ve listened to a few shows on the topic and got dosed with “the Jesuits”. I’m curious but not buying but, yeah, there ALWAYS lying..


    • You bring up a good point about the Jesuits (and the issue about flying west faster than east).

      Its hard for me to get a handle on the thing, but his presentation is thought provoking.


      • Bman, think Pete makes a good point above. There’s a real “roll out” feel to it that has always bothered me. Maybe there’s been decades of work that I was unaware of, but maybe not. I think there’s genuine concern that Jew Truth is on the march.

        I’ll continue to follow, but I do sense I’m looking at a plate of goy bait.


  3. I’m really into the EU theory, although it does not explain everything to me (yet), and I found Don Scott’s book The Electric Sky to be a compelling read. As for Dave Talbot and the “alien sky” theory please be aware that Talbot’s theory is based on Emmanuel Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision”. Bearing in mind that Velikovsky was a Cult member whose theory was vigorously opposed by Carl Sagan, another Cult member (in order to give it some interest), is that particular source to be trusted? I also think the EU theory is being contaminated by the “alien sky” theorists and that Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott ought to be wary of the “turd in the punchbowl” phenomena of allowing an unsubstantiated theory to pollute their particular field of endeavour. They should also be less reliant on NASA and their bullshit, another source they use which is severely contaminated.

    I won’t pass comment on Dubay as I’ve not done any research on him or his theories.


    • Thanks. I have never delved any deeper than Talbot’s presentations (except for the book from Max Igan that has some relative information). So, I don’t know the history.

      But the information also provokes thought and helps explain the weird signs and characters seen in ancient art.

      Your point about Nasa’s (known liars) influence is something else I have considered. This is why I had hoped NTS would chime in since this is one of his favorite subjects (Nasa fakes).


      • “But the information also provokes thought and helps explain the weird signs and characters seen in ancient art.”
        Thanks for your reply 🙂 I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, simply wary of the source; plus the explanation of the weird signs (similar to spiral galaxy formations) came from Anthony Perratt at the Los Alamos Lab via experimental plasma science, not via Velikosky’s outlandish theories of planets in collision. Talbot has mixed Perratt’s findings with Velikosky’s unsubstantiated theories.

        Velikosky was originally a psychiatrist and I find it unusual for him to then turn to the field of “catastrophic cosmology” when he emigrated from Palestine to the US in 1939. He was, apparently, a passionate Zionist and overall he has been accused of simply attempting to vindicate otherwise preposterous biblical claims that do not otherwise appear in the archaeological record.


  4. Submitted by NorthernTruth Seeker via email (shared here with permission):

    I have read many reports from the “flat earthers”….. I am not sold on their premise that Earth and other planets are not round though….

    Be careful with some who do send their comments… Some are a little bit whacko….

    The electric universe theory has more credibility……

    Interesting aspects from several commentators in terms of science…. But the flying faster going west thing has little true science… Think of inertia and when objects are in motion stay in motion… The planet and the planes in the air are both in motion due to the Earth’s spin from west to east, and objects in the air are still “in tune” with that natural spin…. It is only when objects depart the planet entirely that the natural spin and speed are displaced… Such is the case with the fraud manned missions… Those returning command modules would have required to reattach themselves to Earth’s natural spin upon return and that is why true returning craft would have to circle the planet at least once to pick up the planet’s natural spin motion and its natural inertial motion…. However, with the fraud of Apollo, and especially with Apollo 13, we see a direct return without circling the planet first which would be an impossibility and therefore further proves those missions as a fraud…. Just more facts about the fraud space missions to take into account…

    Yes, so much speculation and some good facts presented by the “flat earthers”… But to me their overall concepts of this planet and its shape are still off base…



    • And what about this ‘departing the planet entirely’ thing? The point where our air and atmosphere turn to the vacuum of space? Is there a line, a buffer zone, or an imaginary line? How can anything as light as our upper atmosphere not drift into the vacuum? If there is no line, then surely there must be a zone of transition where objects are not ‘in tune with the natural spin’ of the earth.
      I’d be interested to read some of the many reports you have received on the subject.


  5. ‘Flat Earth Clues: Introduction & All Clues’ playlist on yt channel markksargent. I don’t ‘believe’ anything btw, I just know that something is WAY OFF with the way we are indoctrinated.


    • Thanks, ev.

      I have been slowly reading this and it is revealing.

      But did you notice that Chapter Ten is crucial, because it starts discussing that the sun must be smaller than is thought (see my comment about Eratosthenes).

      There are crucial pages missing!!!!! (Page 33 of the pdf/ pages 58 & 59 of the book)


      • I didn’t notice missing pages. I’m going to purchase the paperback version and check more thoroughly. FYI, I have the kindle version of Eric’s book, am about half-way through, and, so far, I think his arguments are sound.
        Thanks, EV


    • For the above to be correct (and it probably is), the sun must be immense and far away which would have parallel light beams illuminating both places. However, as Dubay suggests, the sun is NOT immense (and close) and moves across the sky over the flat Earth. Therefore, the angles would be different as the smaller light source moves across the two positions.

      So, how do we know if the Sun is immense?


You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s