zotero-db/storage/W2RP77MI/.zotero-ft-cache

Class_Q i 7 3_ llnolc . C b_
fiopvrigltf'N0 .co p y .1 ,
COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT.
\

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
R. G. S. COLLAMORE

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
A Layman's Version A Layman's Message
BY
R. G. S. COLLAMORE
And it was so.—Genesis I
DORRANCE & COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA

CONTENTS

Chapter

Page

I FUNDAMENTALISM . 11

II THE MAIN ISSUE . 17

III THE KEY TO DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDA¬

MENTALISM . 19

IV CIRCUMNAVIGATION . 26

V NAVIGATION . 41

VI DAY AND NIGHT. 69

VII CANALS . 75

VIII UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION . 87

IX SPEED OF LIGHT . 90

X CURVATURE . 97

XI LUNAR ECLIPSES . 103

XII RIVERS . 109

XIII THE PROTESTANT CLERGY . 118

XIV EVOLUTION . 126

XV COMPARISONS . 132

XVI RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 151

INTRODUCTION
According to the Book of Genesis, God commanded "and it was so”. God looked upon His work and everything He had made and saw that "it was good”, and "very good”. Thus He briefly, and without quali¬ fication, revealed His estimate, conclusion and satis¬ faction as to His creation of the earth and the in¬ habitants thereof.
It appears, however, that not only many laymen but clergymen as well take issue with Him, and do not accept as true the Bible account relative to either the creation of the earth or its inhabitants. Others do not accept as true the account relative to the crea¬ tion of the earth, but do accept the account relative to the creation of its inhabitants—thus both groups wholly or partially claim that "it was not so”, "not good”, "not very good”. And yet many of these same people, acknowledging only a partial acceptance, claim to accept the Bible as literally true from cover to cover.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 1: 18.
In obedience to this expressed command I have been persuaded to attempt to offer such assistance as it is

INTRODUCTION
possible for me to give to all those involved in the unfortunate controversy between the so-called Funda¬ mentalists and Modernists or Liberals.
My work is designed to reveal to both groups cer¬ tain mistakes in their premises, as it is immediately evident that they do ignore or misconstrue certain vital factors. In very many instances they are largely controlled by acceptances based on allegations that have been erroneously taken for granted as truth. I am familiar with the arguments advanced by both groups, and such knowledge, combined with other knowledge which I have acquired during many years of investigation, study and experiment, warrant my claim of fitness for the task which I have laid upon myself, and which I have been induced to submit here¬ with in a report as broad and brief as possible.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalms 11: 3.
Robert Gould Shaw Collamore.

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
I
F UNDAMENTALISM
The first conspicuous error made by both parties in this controversy over the literal inter¬ pretation of the Bible, is the use and application of the terms Fundamentalism and Fundamentalist.
The real Fundamentalist does not subscribe to some portions of the Bible and purposely qualify or exclude Genesis and other portions coinciding with and supporting Genesis. This is just what some persons calling themselves Fundamentalists do, although by reason of their belief in the Copernican theory they are to that extent actually Anti-Fundamentalists.
Two Methodist clergymen apparently grasped this important point when one of them from his pulpit substantially declared that, so far as he knew, “the only true, prominent Fundamentalist in the United States is the Reverend Wilbur Glenn Voliva, of Zion City, Illinois, who actually
11

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
preaches and believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis and other portions of the Scripture bearing thereon.” Another clergyman, the Rev¬ erend Herbert A. Sawyer, of Virginia, Minnesota, has gone on record as saying, “I cannot conceive how the anti-evolutionists accept even the Copernican theory; between the two schools Voliva is the more consistent.” Literary Digest, January 13, 1923.
With some exceptions Protestant clergymen are Modernists and consciously or unconsciously believe and support the wrecker and have not yet awakened to the fact. “In the face of this in¬ famy,” says the Reverend Harold J. Hamilton, of Rochester, Michigan, “it is time for the Prot¬ estant churches to clean house and banish every Modernist minister from his pulpit.” New York Tribune. Literary Digest, November 18, 1922.
The Anti-Fundamentalists or Modernists also use the term Fundamentalism incorrectly, so this common error should first be corrected by both groups.
According to charges, countercharges, admis¬ sions and suggestions by many clergymen, pub¬ lished or otherwise announced, there exists at the present time, particularly in the Protestant churches, offensive and scandalous conditions. It
12

FUNDAMENTALISM
is the clergy itself which made and continues this scandal and offense, and we have at once, self-admitted guilt and condemnation within the very ranks of the contenders. Judging by their own self-appraisement, they are not qualified to offer any remedy to clarify the situation, or to successfully extricate themselves from deplorable existing conditions. As sowers and reapers they are consistently entitled to the injurious and unwelcome harvest they are now reaping. Evi¬ dently an outside life-line is needed, as it seems that no life-line is at present available within their possession or ranks.
“When Clergymen Disagree, What Shall the Humble Layman Think ?”
{Boston American, June 11, 1923.)
The article appearing with this caption refers to the controversies now pending relative to the opinions of the Honorable W. J. Bryan, Dr. Fosdick and Dr. Van Dyke, concerning the evolu¬ tionary theories of Charles R. Darwin, the globular theory and the cosmogony of the Bible. That caption has a consistent mate that is en¬ titled to equal prominence and consideration—
13

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
“When Astronomers Disagree, What Shall the Humble Layman Think?”
Considering that both religion and astronomy are treated in that same article, why does the Boston American point the query to clergymen and omit the astronomers?
Professor G. P. Serviss, in the Boston American of January 21, 1922, voices the opinions of thou¬ sands of humble laymen concerning astronomers as follows:
“The letters that I have received on this subject are at once amazing and dishearten¬ ing. However, there can be no doubt that they exhibit truly the state of mental un¬ certainty in which thousands find them¬ selves with regard to the question whether the earth is round or flat. Even many of those who say they believe that it is round, nevertheless show that they have no settled conviction on the subject and simply accept the statement because they find it in wellaccredited books or hear it from persons of repute for learning.”
In that published statement of admissions by Professor Serviss, it appears that thousands are
14

FUNDAMENTALISM
in doubt and others have no definite, settled con¬ viction other than the plea of taken-for-granted as an excuse for acceptance of the globular theory.
Similar admissions previously published by Professor E. L. Larkin in the Boston American under date of March 24, 1915, are as follows:
“Our nation is classed in geography as enlightened. But the enlightenment regard¬ ing even our little solar system, to say noth¬ ing of the hundred million suns, is so dim that it is really dark or black. The ignorance on even elementary astronomy is simply phe¬ nomenal.”
If such an amazing condition of prevailing igno¬ rance does exist, then why? What is the cause? In spite of the great number of educational mediums teaching and enormous expenditures supporting the globular theory, there are still thousands of doubters not convinced. These are without settled convictions of any sort, but occupy themselves with a search for information and explanations. Meanwhile perplexity is in control, at least so far as the United States is concerned.
Such amazing conditions of abysmal ignorance
15

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT which were apparent to Larkin and Serviss, are re¬ vealed and emphasized in the Fundamentalism feuds; and such ignorance and admitted perplexity should be met and overcome. But it appears that the forces now in control have been and are now unable to meet successfully the issues involved, so that the light will have to come from other sources. Such sources should remain unobstructed.
16

II
The Main Issue
The so-called Fundamentalists claim to adhere to the literal interpretation of the Bible, while the so-called Anti-Fundamentalists to a great extent deny and reject such an interpretation. Thus is revealed the main issue between these two Protestant groups.
Modern astronomy and cosmogony are the princi¬ pal weapons used by the Anti-Fundamentalists. Bib¬ lical astronomy and cosmogony should be the weapons of the Fundamentalists, but unfortunately they stu¬ pidly or unwisely reject them, and through their re¬ jection ignore their own best means of attack, and support the weapons and become the allies of their opponents. They have not yet awakened to their suicidal position, by which they have surrendered the whip hand to their opponents.
The subject “calls for light, not laws, for painstak¬ ing scholars, not policemen,” writes the Reverend Ellison R. Purdy, of the Friends in Minneapolis, “and those who are sincerely opposed to evolution should
17

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
meet the theory on the field where it has gained the ascendency, and not on another.” Literary Digest, January 13, 1923.
Correct—that field should be the objective, but what is that field ? The following chapter plainly reveals it.
Truth is truth and science is science, whether dis¬ covered and proved by ancients or moderns, by the educated or uneducated, professional or non-profes¬ sional, majority or minority. But sometimes truth and science may be retarded by some unexpected in¬ fluence least justified in retarding them; and some¬ times truth and science are advanced and perpetuated from some source least anticipated. These influences and sources are not under the exclusive control of any one class whatever.
What is accepted as scientific truth in one decade, is in another decade discarded as false, and such in¬ stances and conclusions especially relate to astronomy and cosmogony.
18

Ill
The Key to Defeat Anti-Fundamentalism
The key to defeat infidelity is also the key to defeat Anti-Fundamentalism. For that key we can consult no better authority than the late Robert G. Ingersoll, who knew that key and preached it sincerely, boldly and publicly. He also made public his analysis thereof, and openly revealed the basis upon which he relied in support of his belief. In addition he admitted and suggested the method that, if used, would change his belief and totally defeat infidelity. It is as follows:
“If it shall turn out that Joshua was su¬ perior to Laplace—that Moses knew more about geology than Humboldt—that Job as a scientist was the superior of Kepler—that Isaiah knew more than Copernicus, and that even the minor prophets excelled the inven¬ tors and discoverers of our time, then I will admit that infidelity must become speechless forever.”
Thus we have Ingersoll’s admission that he was principally guided in the formation of his opinions by
19

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
astronomy and cosmogony and that victory or defeat are contained therein. Each contestant, he averred, had equal opportunity to use the same key to fact and truth. Thus he submitted his analysis for considera¬ tion, indicating that modern astronomy and cosmogony may be false and Biblical astronomy and cosmogony may be true.
Ingersoll named Laplace, Humboldt, Kepler and Copernicus; they constitute his principal authorities, his basis, his bulwark and his reliance. Consequently they are to be considered and judged accordingly.
In addition to and corroborating Ingersoll’s analy¬ sis is a similar analysis by the late Professor Andrew D. White, an ex-President of Cornell University. He substantially claimed that the theories of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and Newton, not only dis¬ posed of the old theological conception of the Uni¬ verse, but also contributed a new basis for the theory of evolution conspicuously different from the theory of direct creation. This subsequently resulted in the formal presentation on July 1, 1858, of two papers by Charles R. Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace respectively to the Linnaean Society at London, and gave birth to the theory of evolution by natural selection. In addition Professor White claimed that
20

DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM
the Magellan voyage of 1519-1521 and similar voyages since, not only support the evolutionary theory as against the theory of direct creation, but also score a brilliant victory for science and for proof of the rotundity of the earth and the antipodes, thus doubly confirming the evolutionary theory. But he admitted that the eminent authorities, Linnaeus in the eight¬ eenth century and Cuvier and Agassiz in the nine¬ teenth century, were prominent opponents of the evolutionary theory. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology>, by Professor White.
The late Professor J. R. Draper, of the New York University, held opinions similar to Ingersoll’s and White’s. He substantially claimed that whether the earth is flat or globular was surely settled by three sailors—Columbus, DeGama and Magellan, particu¬ larly the latter’s circumnavigation of the globe. Pro¬ fessor Draper claimed that he could not understand how anybody could doubt the globular form, in view of the daily rotation movement and that other move¬ ment of the earth on its orbital course around the sun. He admitted that doubts and opposition existed, especially when considered in relation to the Bible and Genesis as against science, and concluded that the question cannot be settled until one of the opposing
21

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
factions surrenders. Professor Draper in The Con¬ flict between Religion and Science.
The conclusions and positive declarations of Draper as regards the movements of the earth and truth of the same are, however, most emphatically denied and rejected by many authorities who even subscribe to the globular theory, some of whom are cited in subse¬ quent chapters of this book. This proves that others than the children of the Church find it possible to differ radically from Professor Draper. And here¬ with I submit the objection and denial by Professor Paul Painleve, of Paris, whose blow from the shoul¬ der is as follows:
“Under the old teaching it was explained that the world turned on its axis and in space. Of course, this is mere talk; no such thing occurs, but such explanation must be given so the ignorant can have a mental picture of what the universe is like. Neither the earth nor the stars whirl in space.” Boston Sunday Globe, April 29, 1923.
Under such a ruling by Painleve, children have been taught to believe falsity as fact, owing to their lack of mental capacity to understand actual truth. Conse-
22

DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM
quently, not only the children of the Church, includ¬ ing Professor Draper, but also all others who accept as fact the alleged rotation of the earth and its orbital course around the sun, are the victims of delusions invented for children and the ignorant.
Are Genesis and the Bible to be disposed of by such delusions accepted as fact by Ingersoll, White and Draper, and lauded as science and evolution? What else can be expected than conflict between religion and alleged science when such falsification is resorted to in behalf of the globular theory and evolution?
Here we have in a nutshell the basis and defense of infidelity—the basis and defense of evolution, and the basis and defense of the Anti-Fundamentalists, all practically in one group, wielding the same wea¬ pons, adopting the same methods of attack and launch¬ ing against the same objective—the Bible. Their ad¬ missions, confessions and claims are open, full and free.
It seems incomprehensible that such intellectuals as Ingersoll, White and Draper, and many others, should be so deluded, so easily trapped by that Magellan voy¬ age and similar voyages, clearly revealing that they were engulfed in that maelstrom of mistakes and non¬ sense. It is inconceivable that such voyages should be
23

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
blindly accepted as genuine and taken as sufficient and exclusive proof of the fallacy of Biblical astronomy and cosmogony.
To oppose and meet the contentions of the AntiFundamentalists, it is only necessary to go into their camp and turn their own weapons against them. It is possible to reveal the weakness and worthlessness of their evidence by exposing the contradictions and doubts that exist and are emphasized among them¬ selves relative to their own conflicting opinions, and thus reveal their much-divided house built upon the sand. It has been proved again and again that socalled great minds are sometimes misled and quickly and easily caught, often by quite simple problems. They announce ridiculous opinions, give misleading advice and make absurd predictions relative to im¬ portant problems. The present controversy is a not¬ able instance of just such a state of affairs.
The Fundamentalists should proceed at once to force their opponents to occupy the defensive position. The primary move to accomplish this result is for the Fundamentalists to reject the following alleged proofs, assumptions, speculations and contentions upon which their opponents rely:
1 The Magellan voyage and similar voyages.
24

DEFEAT ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM
2 The doctrine of the antipodes. 3 The doctrine of evolution as set forth in 1858 and 1859. 4 The alleged distances of the sun, moon and other orbs in space. 5 The alleged movements of the earth. 6 So-called science, as alluded to repeatedly. The first and second are principally relied upon to prove the rotundity of the earth and thus refute the Biblical claims. The third is called upon to refute the Biblical nar¬ rative of Creation. The fourth is quoted to refute Scriptural teaching as embodied in the declaration of Jesus Christ when on the Cross—‘Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” The fifth is relied upon to refute the Biblical claims as to the foundation, immobility and stability of the earth. The sixth is considered the birth date of true science.
25

IV
Circumnavigation
The Magellan voyage and similar voyages have been taken for granted as only possible on an earth of globular form, and are cited as proof of rotundity and the theory of antipodes. This taken-for-granted confidence and acceptance, in combination with other equally blind acceptances, have led to some of the deplorable straits in which the Fundamentalists now find themselves and from which they are struggling to extricate themselves.
Many persons have discovered the falsity of that circumnavigation theory and its consequent claims, and have rejected it as proof of rotundity and antip¬ odes; subsequently, they have wondered why they ever believed it to be true. The Fundamentalists also should banish that taken-for-granted acceptance and analyze the problem as many others have done to ar¬ rive at the truth.
Now as to circumnavigation. A globular earth form arbitrarily demands certain conditions that must
26

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
be complied with and from which evasion is absolutely impossible. If all of the surface of the earth as now known can be reached otherwise than in compliance with these conditions, then the claim to rotundity fails accordingly, not only as to navigation, but also as re¬ gards many of the claims of astronomy.
What is circumnavigation in all latitudes and longi¬ tudes? Can complete circumnavigation be accom¬ plished on both a globular form and on a flat surface? Or exclusively on a globular form? Or exclusively on a flat surface? Is complete circumnavigation necessary in order that all parts of the surface of the earth as now known to exist may be reached? These questions require detailed, descriptive answers and just consideration.
Complete circumnavigation on a globular form is the encirclement of the entire length of every parallel of latitude and the entire length of every meridian of longitude and the return, in each instance, to point of first departure. It must include all latitudes and all longitudes and not exclude any of them. Thereby the globular form! is tested, and the possibility of reaching all points on the surface of the earth as a flat surface by latitude and longitude other than by complete circumnavigation is also tested.
27

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
Latitude on Globular Form
According to the exigencies of a globular form, lati¬ tude is measured on imaginary lines circling the earth; those lines north of the equator have the north geo¬ graphical pole as the center for each parallel, and those lines south of the equator have the south geo¬ graphical pole as the center for each parallel. Both geographical poles apply equally as the center for the parallel called the equator, and the courses on all these parallels are from east to west and west to east.
Thus the test of latitude on a globular form is as follows: All points on the earth’s surface north of the equator are so situated that a line from any point down and through the earth, would pass through or near the interior center of the earth and emerge south of the equator. All points on the surface of the earth south of the equator are so situated that a line from any point down and through the earth would pass through or near the interior center of the earth and emerge north of the equator. A line from any point on the equator down and through the earth would pass directly through the interior center of the earth and emerge on the equator at a point directly opposite the point from which the line started. The zeniths
28

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
and nadirs of each and every line apply accordingly, and it is absolutely necessary that these positions of lines, angles, zeniths and nadirs be thoroughly under¬ stood as they apply particularly to travel east and west and determine the helms to be used on those courses.
Such positions are exacted by a globular form, and travel must and will conform thereto if the earth is a globular form. To illustrate these various positions, —assume a ship is on the 45th parallel north latitude heading east; another ship is on the 45th parallel south latitude heading east; another ship is on the equator heading east. Each ship is to maintain its respective latitude going east continuously until it returns to its point of first departure. By so doing it returns by the west, thus describing a circle by latitude around the earth,—assuming, of course, for analysis and illus¬ tration, that there is a water course for the entire distance of each parallel of latitude.
Bearing in mind that the lines and zeniths are fac¬ tors as previously described, the ship on the 45th paral¬ lel north latitude is directly over the line that goes down through the interior center of the earth and emerges near the 45th parallel south latitude. This ship so continues in this relative position throughout its
29

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
continuous and complete voyage in going east and returning by west, and in so doing circles the north geographical pole, keeping equidistant at all points of its voyage from said pole. Thus this ship’s left or port side is always facing the pole, and to do so re¬ quires the port helm in turning around the pole to hold it to its position in respect to its zenith and nadir. In going west and so continuing and returning by east, the same conditions apply as to zenith and nadir, but in this case the right or starboard side of the ship is always facing the pole, and to turn around the pole requires the starboard helm. During both of these voyages this ship will actually conform to all the demands of a globular form.
Bearing in mind the lines and zeniths as factors as previously described, the ship on the 45th parallel south latitude is directly over the line that goes down and through the interior center of the earth and emerges near the 45th parallel north latitude. This ship so continues in this relative position throughout its continuous and complete voyage in going east and returning by west, and in so doing circles the south geographical pole, keeping equidistant at all points on its voyage from the pole. Thus its right or starboard side is always facing the pole, and to do so requires
30

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
the starboard helm in turning around the pole to hold to its position in respect to its zenith and nadir. In going west and so continuing and returning by east, the same conditions apply as to zenith and nadir, but in this case the left or port side of this ship is always facing the pole, and to turn around the pole requires the port helm on this voyage south of the equator. During both of these voyages this ship will have con¬ formed to all the demands of a globular form.
It will be noticed that these two ships in relation to each other and as to helms on their respective east and west voyages occupy different positions but use the same helms differently,—just the reverse of each other. This is a most important point to consider and understand, as such factors determine much as to what constitutes circumnavigation by east and west voyages on a globular form, and induce the question: Would those two ships in fact, really occupy such different positions in relation to each other and re¬ quire such different helm manipulation in going east and west?
The four illustrations refer to a direct east and west analysis, but an irregular zigzag east and west course is subject to a similar analysis and applies accordingly.
31

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
Now as to the third ship, which is on the equator. Bearing in mind the lines and zeniths as factors as previously described, the ship on the equator is di¬ rectly over the line that goes down and through the interior center of the earth and emerges on the equator at a point directly opposite the point from which the line started; the zeniths and nadirs apply accordingly. This ship is going straight, whether on its continuous eastern voyage or its continuous western voyage, and there is no deviation to right or left. Therefore the amidship helm is the helm required by a globular form on such strictly eastern and western voyages, and the equator latitude is the only latitude of the whole one hundred and eighty-one latitudes whereon a straight, continuous circling of the earth by latitude can be rqade. This “going straight” factor has confused many persons, as they erroneously believe that it applies to all latitudes and the entire extent of each latitude, whereas it only applies to the equatorial lati¬ tude in its entire distance.
This last illustration of the third ship refers to a strictly east and west analysis, but an irregular equa¬ torial course is subject to a similar analysis.
It should be noticed that while the first two ships occupy different positions and use the same helms
32

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
differently in relation to each other on their respective east and west voyages, the third ship occupies quite a different position and requires different helm ma¬ nipulation. Thus a globular form demands six different positions and requirements for these three ships, each pursuing easterly and westerly courses, encircling the earth according to the globular theory. This again induces the question—Would those three ships in fact, occupy such different positions in relation to each other and require such different helm manipulation in going east and west?
It has been claimed by expert mariners that the heeling of a ship obliges certain allowances to be made because of the angle created by the heeling position. If that angle is an important factor, how much more so are the various, pronounced angles when a ship is south of the equator, practically upside down in rela¬ tion to a ship north of the equator and also to the true north, north geographical, and north magnetic poles? For both ships rely principally upon instruments in reference to the so-called true north for guidance, and the globular form demands all these different conditions and angles.
I submitted my analysis as to these three ships and their voyages to the Navigation Department of a
33

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
certain correspondence school which is a recognized authority, and received the following reply—
“Your conclusion is correct and will be all the more apparent if the said courses are projected on a globe, but does not hold good in actual practice.”
Here we have an authority admitting that my analysis as applied to a globular form is correct, and also admitting that such positions and conditions are not complied with in actual practice of navigation. In other words, two admissions which operate against the alleged proof that the Magellan voyage of circum¬ navigation determined the shape of the earth and that shape to be globular. Consequently, if in practice other positions and conditions are complied with in¬ stead of globular requirements, then the Magellan voyage has not proved the rotundity of the earth and an antipodes, and science did not gain a crushing victory in 1519-1521, or destroy every geographical conception based upon sacred writings as is so confi¬ dently claimed by Professor Andrew D. White. In¬ stead of scoring a victory, science has been in fact, the victim of a cruel delusion.
34

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
Latitude on a Flat Surface
In relation to a flat or plane surface, latitude is measured on imaginary lines circling a central point, that point being the north center (or call it pole, for brevity), and all these latitudinal lines have a com¬ mon center. The parallels begin at that center and increase in length as their distance from the center in¬ creases. These circles are from east to west and west to east, and all points on the earth’s surface are so situated on these parallels of latitude that the same position applies equally to all objects in connection with and relative to vertical and horizontal lines and zeniths, there being no divergence between them what¬ soever.
Relative to the flat surface, a ship on any latitude north or south of the equator, sailing east and so continuing, has the left or port side facing the north central pole; in fact, the ship is turning around that spot and in so doing uses the port helm in the turning process, and in due time returns to the point of first departure. A ship on any latitude north or south of the equator in sailing west and so continuing, has the right or starboard side of the ship facing the north central pole; in fact, the ship is turning around that
35

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
point and in so doing uses the starboard helm in the turning process, and in due time returns to point of first departure. Thus both the east and west courses, on every latitude north and south of the equator and including the equator, are accomplished by sailing around the north central pole, there being no south central pole south of the equator on a flat or plane surface.
Having thus presented the analysis of latitude in relation to a globular form and a flat surface, the comparison shows that the globular form requires six different methods in the process of sailing continuously east and west, while the flat surface requires only two methods in circumnavigation by latitude.
Going latitudinally east or west on a flat surface the direction is not toward any boundary or edge, as is so commonly and erroneously believed, as the proc¬ ess of going toward any boundary or so-called edge on a flat surface would be by longitude. This has not yet been done, either on the theory of a globular form or a plane, and to those explorers and mariners who have gone farthest south by longitude, there has always been in front of them the horizon beyond and not a definite edge or boundary. None of them ever reached or solved this horizon, and until this is
36

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
actually accomplished the claims of the experts and advocates of the globular theory remain premature and worthless. Their claims and arguments are also open to criticism and rejection because they have so confidently and sarcastically repudiated all those others who do not accept the truth of their globular theory.
Longitude on a Globular Form
In relation to a globular form, longitude is measured on imaginary lines circling the earth from north to south and south to north, all meeting at the north geographical and the south geographical poles, which are respectively the points farthest north and farthest south of the equator. These longitudinal lines sepa¬ rate most widely at the equator. From the equator and toward both poles these lines gradually converge until they meet and come to a point at each pole respectively.
All of these longitudinal lines or meridians of longi¬ tude require only one helm for a ship on a continuous voyage from north to south and south to north and its return to point of first departure. That helm is the amidship helm if the voyage is strictly by longitude. Even if the ship sailed an irregular course with the
37

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
object of circling the earth from north to south and return by north, or vice versa, to prove circumnavi¬ gation by longitude and thus prove the rotundity of the earth and an antipodes, the controlling helm would still be the amidship helm. For longitude on a globular form requires straight sailing. But such straight sailing by longitude as to a complete circling of the earth has never yet been accomplished, and is quite different from circumnavigating by latitude; consequently, not one of the three hundred and sixty meridians of longitude has been traveled its entire length by any globular method. This reveals that the earth as a globular form with a north pole and a south pole has not yet been demonstrated as such by circumnavigation, and failure to so demonstrate it defeats the advocates of the globular theory. In view of which, the claims of the advocates of the flat sur¬ face theory are to date correspondingly sustained.
Longitude on a Flat Surface
Relative to a flat surface, longitude is measured on imaginary lines starting from the north central pole and extending southward, the lines diverging and in¬ creasing in divergence as the distance from the pole
38

CIRCUMNAVIGATION
increases. For illustration,—a wheel laid flat conveys a good idea of those longitudinal lines on a flat sur¬ face; the hub represents the north central pole and the spokes represent the three hundred and sixty meridians of longitude. A ship to sail the entire length of any of those lines from the north central point or spot to the farthest southern point, and from the farthest southern point to the north central point and continuing on and over that point and down to the farthest southern point, completes a voyage covering from north to south and south to north, showing that complete longitudinal circumnavigation is not neces¬ sary in order to reach all points on the surface of the earth. Thus the one hundred and eighty-one parallels of latitude and the three hundred and sixty meridians of longitude on a flat surface cover all points on the surface of the earth, the latitudinal lines being circular and the longitudinal lines being straight. The circular lines require the port helm going east and returning by west, and the starboard helm going west and re¬ turning by east. The straight lines require only the amidship helm, going north to south and south to north. And the entire operation is accomplished by a simple four-method process as against the eightmethod process required by the globular form.
39

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT Complete circumnavigation under the requirements of the globular theory demands that the earth be com¬ pletely circled east and west and north and south, in order that all points on the earth’s surface be reached. Whereas complete circumnavigation is not necessary on a flat surface in order that all points on the earth’s surface be reached, as we have pointed out above. In order to support and emphasize this contention in favor of the flat surface theory, I will submit in the next chapter on Navigation, the admissions of certain eminent experts and authorities on the globular theory.
40

V
Navigation
As a preliminary presentation of the issues involved relative to navigation in connection with the shape of the earth, the following statements of two experts on the globular theory are submitted for consideration.
Statement and prediction by J. von Gumpach as published by him in 1862—
“As bearing upon navigation and com¬ merce, it involves the preservation of mil¬ lions of dollars’ worth of property and thou¬ sands of lives. During those 150 years since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, there have perished at sea, solely in consequence of his erroneous theory, at a very moderate compu¬ tation some 10,000 human beings, the ma¬ jority of them British sailors, and property in addition worth from twenty to thirty mil¬ lions of pounds sterling. At the present period, the annual losses at sea attributable to the same cause, amount to 500 lives and property valued at a million pounds sterling. All from no other cause save an erroneous
41

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
astronomical theory. Such losses will con¬ tinue unless that theory ceases to be applied to the practical purposes of navigation.”
Statement and prediction of Commander J. Foster Stackhouse, published in 1915—
“Between 1909 and 1913, Lloyds lost 214 vessels, a total of 260,063 tons, without knowing just how, when or where the losses occurred. The average of ships lost in this way is more than one a week, and represents an actual loss of $500 an hour. After I had studied such statistics as these for a while it seemed to me some serious scientific investigation of the matter was absolutely necessary.” Boston Sunday Herald, Febru¬ ary 14, 1915, and elsewhere.
Commander Stackhouse also averred that it is now believed that Cape Horn's true position is different from that shown on the charts and that it is vitally im¬ portant that it should be exactly located. Also that Hervagault’s Breakers should be located as they may be connected with the loss of the Titanic, as the Breakers are about sixteen miles southeast of the as¬ sumed position of the Titanic when sunk.
42

NAVIGATION
Two steamships sailed from England, both bound for New York. One of them, the Titanic, unfortu¬ nately was lost, the other arrived safely. Report as to the latter vessel appears in the work Wrinkles in Practical Navigation, by S. T. S. Lecky, Master Mariner, Commander, R. N. R., F. R. A. S., F. R. G. S., etc., and substantially contains the following ad¬ missions by him.
It appears that he, with another mariner, were on a trip from England to New York City. When near¬ ing their destination, they, together with the captain and two officers of the ship, arranged to independently take observations at noon and compare their findings. They very nearly agreed.
They were favored with excellent conditions, as the day was clear and cloudless, the sea smooth and the horizon clean-cut, yet within two hours later, on mak¬ ing Long Island, New York, they found to their astonishment that their findings were fourteen miles in error. He admitted that many such cases had come under his notice.
Thus this noted expert admits that five observers, including himself, were wrong to the extent of four¬ teen miles, although the weather, atmosphere, horizon, sea and sun conditions were all that could be desired.
43

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
They were so wrong that he describes it as a “phe¬ nomenon,” and measures it by the term “magnitude.” It is worthy of note that he recalls that many such cases have come under his notice, yet frequently with¬ out disastrous consequences. Why they are so wrong he does not know and has no theory to account for such errors, but he suggests that mariners look into the matter as it may be due to dip or refraction.
Another case published by Lieut. E. Middleton, of England, is substantially as follows—
I have sailed with very superior navi¬ gators in H. M.’s Troopships, and when only ten days out of port, we have barely escaped disastrous shipwreck, although the weather re¬ mained fine during the whole ten days and the sea like a pond. Nevertheless, the captain con¬ fessed that he was “out” some 200 miles in his observations and it was only by a miracle we escaped destruction. This escape, coupled with Captain Nilsen’s 110 mile error, caused me to smell a nautical rat.
Remarks by officers tended to show that the disbelief in the globular form is much wider among educated authorities than is supposed.
Another disaster occurred in October, 1922, as fol-
44

NAVIGATION
lows. A Gloucester fishing schooner was totally wrecked when she struck Sable Island, although her captain believed he was 14 miles south of the island. Later he blamed it to strong tides. A similar disaster occurred in January, 1919, to the Northern Pacific off Fire Island. A Boston Herald editorial claimed that “no one knew why the Northern Pacific was so far out of her course; other ships that night fared safely through the fog.”
The George Washington came near to disaster in February, 1919. The great transport was running for the Boston Light, but was instead headed straight for Thacher’s Island, off Cape Ann, and narrowly escaped a wreck. President Wilson was on board. In this case the error was again attributed to the fog, but this vessel, like the Northern Pacific, was too far north. There are two other noticeable facts concerning those two vessels, and in fact, concerning most sea disasters, viz.—the estimates as to errors are uniformly from eleven to eighteen miles.
The mystery which surrounds these figures, eleven to eighteen, receives further emphasis by the report of the Cruise of the Carnegie—
“We were astonished as the Carnegie pro¬ ceeded south toward the region of Queen
45

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
Mary Land, to find the chart errors in declination constantly increasing, until, in the region of latitude 60° S. longitude 110° E., they reached a maximum of 12° for the U. S. and British charts, and of 16' for the German charts.”
It is a conspicuous fact that although these errors result in terrible disasters there is little activity as to investigations and there is an apparent attempt to discourage efforts to solve the mystery. Such a state of affairs naturally gives rise to such questions as— Why eleven to eighteen miles error in estimates every time ? Why the apparent secrecy ?
The Builder of September 20, 1862, published the following suggestion—
“Assuredly there are many shipwrecks from alleged errors of reckoning which may arise from a somewhat false idea of the general form and measurement of the earth’s surface; such a subject, therefore, ought to be candidly and boldly discussed.”
Thus the warnings and conclusions of J. von Gumpach, Commander Stackhouse, The Builder, and Mid¬ dleton are in substantial agreement and the citations
46

NAVIGATION
as to the various vessels previously referred to are significant facts that should cause fair-minded, un¬ prejudiced persons to consider and, if possible, analyze the subject.
Having cited a few cases of disaster, I will now cite a few cases of admissions as to the relative value of the globular and plane theories, especially as relates to plane sailing, and what the globe earth theory can¬ not account for. Dunraven in Navigation substan¬ tially claimed that—
“—the sailing, day’s work and all the prob¬ lems solved by the help of Traverse Tables, would be impracticable on the supposition that the earth is a sphere, and for the pur¬ poses of navigation the earth is treated as flat.”
This authority admits that it is practicable to navi¬ gate the earth only if it is regarded as a plane surface. Such an admission induces the question, how is it possible to navigate the earth on such a supposition and still claim that it actually is not flat? And further, why is it impossible to navigate the earth on the claim that it is globular? It is equivalent to claiming that a person cannot go to his house by a street that
47

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
does exist, but can go to his house by a street that does not exist.
Professor Evers in Navigation in Theory and Practice, substantially admits that—
“In practice, scarcely any other rules are used but those derived from plane sailing, and longitude is more frequently found by it than by any other method.”
So what they have claimed as false is apparently actually true for purposes of navigation, and the globular theory is erroneous. For all credit is given to the plane theory and none to the globular.
We here have two more confessions from two more advocates of the globular theory. Professor R. A. Gregory, F. R. A. S., in Elementary Physiography ad¬ mitted that—
“Circumnavigating on a flat surface with the compass needle pointing to the center of the surface, a ship might sail due east or west and eventually return to the same point by describing a circle.”
D. Wilson-Barker, R. N. R., F. R. S. E., in Navi¬ gation, has admitted that—
“The fact that the earth has been sailed
48

NAVIGATION
around, is not sufficient proof as to its exact shape.”
Many sea captains and officers haughtily assume to tell us all about it because it is their profession, but S. T. S. Lecky, Mariner, previously referred to, tells us how little they know and how ignorant they are on the subject:—
“He (the captain) only knows that by certain formulae learned parrot-like, certain results are produced, but how is a mystery.”
i
Such a severe criticism of sea captains by Lecky, induced me to apply a test. I submitted a certain problem in navigation on latitudinal circumnavigation of the globular form to three noted nautical schools in the United States. The problem consisted of a course north of the equator, a course south of the equator and a course on the equator, with a ship on each course heading east and to so continue the entire length of its course and return to point of departure —circumnavigation by latitude. Helm manipulation, is, of course, the key to this problem, and if that is cor¬ rectly stated, all the other factors will conform to the requirements of the globular theory. But if helm ma-
49

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
nipulation is incorrectly described, then Lecky’s criti¬ cism is warranted and sustained and such sea captains and nautical experts stand self-condemned.
In answering the problem, the first school claimed the amidship helm for all three courses.
The second school claimed the starboard helm for the course north of the equator, the port helm for the course south of the equator, and the amidship helm for the course on the equator.
The third school sent a representative to interview me personally and subsequently answered as follows— “Your problem and your sketch and solution of that problem are correct for a globe form.”
The first two schools disagreed as to the courses north and south of the equator, but agreed as to the course on the equator; and the third disagreed with the first and second schools as to all three courses, but agreed with the plane theory as to all three courses. Yet this same school adheres to the theory of the globular form.
Such answers from three nautical schools confirm Lecky’s “parrot-learning” criticism, and reveal that those experts did not know what constitutes east and west on a globular form—the form they believe is true.
50

NAVIGATION
The answer of the first school indicates that China is the antipodes and nadir of the United States and vice versa, and that the 45th parallel south latitude is the antipodes and nadir of itself. Consequently, not one of those antipodal lines would pass through or near the interior center of a globular form, and neither line would have the length that a globular form estimate necessarily demands.
The answer of the second school indicates that the helm for the course north of the equator is in fact the helm for the course south of the equator. Just the reverse, as the answer should have been port in¬ stead of starboard. The helm for the course south of the equator, should have been starboard instead of port, then the zeniths and nadirs and interior center of the globular form would coincide. These are the factors that show how navigation determines whether the earth is a globe or a plane surface, and the appli¬ cation of these factors by experts will show whether or not they understand these two theories.
Considering Lecky’s criticism of sea captains, I was not greatly surprised to receive such incorrect answers from the three nautical schools noted above, nor equally incorrect answers from various sea cap¬ tains. Two sea captains in particular, were con-
51

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
founded and amazed when their arguments were met and their blunders revealed.
Here is another instance of error that appeared in the Boston Sunday Advertiser, November 30, 1919, relative to circumnavigation—
“If we had X-ray eyes that could look straight down through the earth to the other side at our friends of the antipodes, we should see of human beings only the soles of their feet pointing up at us. The Chinese hurry¬ ing about would look to us as we look to the worms, if they had sight, and could look up at us from the ground. To the Chinese it is you that hang head downward. Compared with you the men in China are hanging head downward and their houses all have the roofs hanging down.”
According to this description published and dis¬ tributed as correct educational information, a line straight down from Boston would emerge in China. Therefore China, which is on the same latitude as Boston, is the nadir or antipodes of Boston, and this line would not go through the interior center of the earth but through the earth at 42° above the interior
52

NAVIGATION
center of the earth. Such a blunder agrees with the one made by the nautical schools.
If the earth’s form is an oblate spheroid the true analysis is as follows:—Taking Boston Light as a definite location, approximately 42° 20' north latitude and 70° 53' west longitude, a line from this ‘point would go straight down, passing near the interior center of the earth and would emerge on 42° 43' south latitude and 109° 7' east longitude in the ocean south¬ west of Australia. But if the earth’s form is a sphere, then a line from the Light would go straight down and pass exactly through the interior center of the earth and emerge on 42° 20' south latitude and 109° 7' east longitude in the ocean southwest of Australia. A difference of 23 miles of latitude in the comparison of oblate spheroid with sphere. Such lines would not emerge on their own latitude as the nautical schools and the Boston Sunday Advertiser claimed.
China is to the east and west of Boston and the United States, on practically the same latitudes and in the northern hemisphere,—not beneath and south of us or in the southern hemisphere.
Another Boston paper, misunderstanding what con¬ stitutes an antipodes even for a globular form, pub¬ lished the following:—
53

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
“Ripley’s Ramble Round the World, South China Sea, January 23, 1923. The rocky Island of Cavite, the naval base of Manila, is one of the best fortifications we have. And in the harbor, slowly riding at anchor, are many destroyers and other armored craft. Your Uncle is wide awake. Today at 9.31 A. M. I was exactly half way around the world. The Laconia was about straight down from where you stand.
Latitude 12° 7 North, Longitude 118° 54' East.”
With this statement was an accompanying sketch showing a ball form with some buildings at the exact top marked “New York”. Straight down at the exact bottom of the ball was a steamer bottom up to New York and marked “Laconia.” By Robert L. Ripley— Boston Globe—April 5, 1923.
Consider the blunder of claiming that 12° 7' north latitude was approximately straight down from 40'° 42' north latitude, the latitude of New York City, and both latitudes north of the equator and in the same Northern hemisphere. If the earth were a sphere, the antipodes of 40° 42' north latitude would be 40° 42' south latitude in the southern hemisphere. If the earth were an oblate spheroid the antipodes of 40° 42'
54

NAVIGATION
north latitude would be 40° and a few miles variation from 42' south latitude and in the southern hemis¬ phere. The antipodes of 12° 7' north latitude would be 12° 7' south latitude, and not 40° north latitude. China being on the same latitudes as the United States, the people of both countries occupy the same upright position relative to one another and not feet toward feet as those experts erroneously claimed.
Such men with such ideas as published in the Boston Sunday Advertiser and Boston Globe disclose at once their ignorance of circumnavigation. Yet they think that they can ridicule others who do understand the positions of latitude and longitude on the globular and plane surfaces of the earth. Such published blunders reveal the necessity of just such detailed explanations as appear in this book relative to navigation.
The important question, however, is as to the size of the earth south of the equator; whether it is the same size or larger than the earth north of the equator. If larger, then latitudinal and longitudinal lines will be affected thereby and distances increased and the duration of darkness will differ from the dura¬ tion north of the equator.
It has been admitted that there are many factors and conditions that apply exclusively to the portion of
55

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
the earth south of the equator. This would indicate that it is much larger than the portion north of the equator. The darkness is of longer duration south than north, but as the exact extent has not yet been accurately determined any conclusions as to the exact size and shape of the earth are correspondingly un¬ certain.
There are larger water areas and less land surface south than north. The presence of land is necessary for geodetic surveys, and if it is lacking, little data can be secured bearing on the southern regions in comparison with the northern.
It has also been admitted that whether the earth is spherical, spheroidal or ellipsoidal there is thus far no positive evidence.
According to explorers Shackelton and Amundsen, the South Polar region is a great continent, the South Pole itself situated on a plateau 10,000 feet high. And according to explorers the North Pole lies at sea level, and there is a vast difference between the North and South Poles as to fish and animal life, vegetation, ice, etc.
In Anson's Voyage Around the World, by R. Walter, the following error as to distance is reported:
56

NAVIGATION
“The whole squadron esteemed themselves upwards of 10 degrees more westerly from the Straits of Magellan, so that in running down by our account about 19 degrees of longitude we had not really advanced half that distance.”
Here is a mistake in distance of about 10 degrees, and all estimates by a whole squadron were wrong. This was because their calculations were made on rules and tables based upon the supposition that the southern hemisphere was the same size as the northern hemis¬ phere, and that distances would be, therefore, equal.
To cite another and similar instance—in the Voy¬ age by the Discovery, by Captain R. F. Scott, he states—
“From Wilkes’ report concerning Eld’s Peak and Ringgold’s Knoll land, I must con¬ clude those places are non-existent, and there is no case for any land east of Adelie Land. Thus, once for all, we have definitely dis¬ posed of Wilkes’ Land. True geographical conditions should be known.”
Captain Scott came to this conclusion because he as¬ serts he actually sailed over the region Wilkes claimed
57

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
to be land. Notice how sure he was that he had for all time settled the mooted question himself.
In South Sea Voyages, by J. C. Ross, another discrepancy is reported:
“We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles by observation in advance of our reckoning. By our observations at noon, we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in 2 days.”
In the United States Exploring Expedition, by Wilkes, we find a similar error reported:
“In less than 18 hours he was 20 miles to the east of his reckoning in 54° 20' south.”
The reader will note that when the route taken is east or west, the same results are obtained; therefore currents are not the cause of the discrepancy between observation and actuality, as the phenomenon occurs on both east and west.
In an announcement by Andrew Carnegie, reported by the Boston Post of January 21, 1911, the Carnegie Institute exonerated the captain of a British ship who ran his vessel upon the rocks, by proving that
58

NAVIGATION
the British Admiralty charts by which the captain was guided were two or three degrees astray.
Here is another instance where a sea captain lost his ship when it was not his fault but was the fault of astronomers and nautical experts. But sea captains up to date have evidently not cared to defend them¬ selves, especially if their own conclusions happen to bear out the plane form theory.
The following paragraph appeared in the Literary Gazette, October 19, 1861:
“Every existing chart and sea route hav¬ ing been elaborated under the Newtonian hypothesis, it follows that the location of rocks, shoals and other maritime dangers has all along been misplaced in greater or less degree, whereas the true cause, never dreamt of, is an astronomical theory.”
Permit me to cite another illustration of the skepti¬ cism of mariners who, to a certain extent, are ap¬ parently obliged to remain silent on theoretical prob¬ lems of navigation yet are compelled to bear the blame in case of disaster. Lieutenant E. Middleton substan¬ tially makes the following extraordinary statement:
“I did not leave the ship before hearing certain remarks made by navigators which
59

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
were so derogatory to Captain Cook, the famous navigator, that I forbear to repeat them. The fact is that many people in authority have long known what to dis¬ believe, but do not know even yet what to believe or who to believe, and this repre¬ sents the real difficulty of the position. The rapidity with which the climate changes from Antarctic cold to tropical heat, argues that the sun must be very close, so as to render such a change possible, in that it is a very fair argument to urge that with a very distant sun and the diameter of the globe representing such a very small proportion of that distance, the climate of the globe would be very much the same all over.”
Mawson in the Aurora proved the existence of Wilkes’ Land by dividing his crew into two parties, and encamping on Wilkes’ Laiid 1200 miles apart. This, although the fact Wilkes’ Land had been dis¬ credited by most Europeans for 72 years. Mawson, however, found no trace of Clairie Land seen by D’Urville, and Shackelton found no trace of New South Greenland and declared it a myth, as his sound¬ ings showed such a location to be 1901 fathoms of water. Amundsen further reports that “Emerald Island on the charts was sailed over by Captain Davis,
60

NAVIGATION
consequently if it exists at all, it must be incorrectly charted, and there are other islands charted the posi¬ tions of which are doubtful.”
The Carnegie explorers and scientists arrived in San Francisco on February 21, 1921, and reported that “The Royal Company Islands noted on many maps and projections as at a point south of Australia, cannot be located and perhaps never actually existed, although they were claimed to have been discovered 70 years ago by a British mariner. Similar errors in distances were noted in the Indian Ocean. The Car¬ negie sailed right over the region charted as the Royal Company Islands. It will take more than this to shake the belief of sea-faring men in the Royal Company Islands/’ Boston Transcript.
This “now you see it, now you don’t,” as to the Royal Company Islands, apparently is a duplicate in¬ stance of the Wilkes’ Land controversy, with 72 years and 70 years respectively applying to the persistence of the myths in both cases. Wilkes, Scott, Shackelton, Mawson, Amundsen and the Carnegie explorers and scientists have made reports as to the far south regions, and it is very conspicuous and significant that each finds something that some others do not find, and at the same time each deny something that others claim they did find.
61

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
D’Urville finds Clairie Land, but Mawson denies its existence. Wilkes finds a large stretch of land that now bears his name, but Scott and others called it a myth only to have Mawson re-discover it. Shackelton finds no trace of South Greenland, which is duly charted, and Amundsen and Captain Davis find no trace of Emerald Island, also charted. The Carnegie experts deny the existence of the Royal Company Islands, which sea-faring men declare do exist. All of these various claims and denials relate to the re¬ gions south of the equator and toward the alleged South Pole. Such variance induces the following questions:
What kind of observations of latitude and longi¬ tude did Captain Scott make when he failed to find Wilkes’ Land, a stretch of land over 1200 miles long equivalent to the distance from New York City to Havana, Cuba?
Yet Mawson found it and reported it and his find¬ ings were corroborated by Shackelton. What kind of observations of latitude and longitude did Mawson make when he failed to find Clairie Land, found and reported by D’Urville? What kind of observations of latitude and longitude did Shackelton make when he failed to find New South Greenland, which is duly
62

NAVIGATION
charted ? The same question may be applied to Amundsen, Captain Davis and the Carnegie experts relative to Emerald Island and the Royal Company Islands respectively.
The Boston Post of December 9, 1921, reports the following relative to sea disasters:
“A year’s record to June 30 showed 222 American craft foundered and 555 figured in other misfortunes. All the other nations have similar lists. It is difficult to under¬ stand, with all the wonderful inventions now at hand, how there could have been so many collisions and sinkings. The sea yet takes its toll and there is much marine work to be done, so much in fact, that it may take generations of men to complete it.”
Comparison with the estimates and conclusions of the Literary Gazette of 1861, The Builder of 1862, J. von Gumpach in 1862, and Commander Stackhouse in 1915, all reveal such important reports of mysterious happenings and significant warnings that people should certainly consider the subject seriously.
The North Pole Skepticism
Consider the charges and countercharges, the bit¬ terness and rivalry that were disclosed in the contro-
63

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
versies between Cook and Peary and their respective supporters relative to the alleged discovery of the North Geographical Pole. Prince Albert of Monaco, the eminent geographer and scientist, doubted Peary and practically charged him with ‘Voluntary decep¬ tion.”—Boston Transcript, July 1, 1922. Consider that General Greely, the famous explorer, supported the contention of the Prince of Monaco, but claimed that “he did not think Peary wilfully lied but was probably mistaken.” Boston Sunday Post, July 9, 1922.
MacMillan, the explorer, claimed that he “found land very different from the current delineations on the latest and most authoritative maps”; that he “sailed over areas indicated as land” on those maps and that “nearly all points are incorrect astronomically in the Arctic region.” Boston Sunday Globe, August 27, 1922. Boston Post, October 6, 1922.
Stefansson, the explorer, makes the following state¬ ment relative to the Arctic regions and maps of same:
“We look at a map of the northern hemis¬ phere—one that has the equator for its cir¬ cumference. Such a map compels the realiza¬ tion that the Arctic is not at the top of the world, but central with reference to the
64

NAVIGATION
lands on which we live, that radiate from it as from a hub. You will probably discover that in comparison with the rest of the world, the Arctic is much smaller than you thought. You may discover, too, that you cannot buy in England a map that shows the whole northern hemisphere (in the sense in which numerous maps show the eastern hemis¬ phere), and that discovery may indicate how new to most of us must be such ideas as lie back of the serious projects of Admiral Mof¬ fett and General Brancker. If they be new, let us give them serious thought in case they may prove more important than we at first supposed.” Boston Transcript, Sept. 22, 1923.
This additional evidence by another explorer as to errors in the present maps and the lack of correct maps, reveals not only uncertainties concerning dis¬ tances at the poles and equator, but concerning all points lying between. All these uncertainties and errors tend to support the flat-earthian’s contentions.
The Antarctic and South Pole Skepticism
Consider the bitterness, denials, jealousies and rival¬ ries of the various explorers and nations over the ex¬ ploration of Antarctic regions and the alleged South
65

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
Geographical Pole. Consider the alleged deception of Scott by Amundsen, whereby Scott was given to un¬ derstand that the voyage by Amundsen was not for the purpose of reaching the South Pole but quite otherwise. Yet that was exactly Amundsen’s goal. Because of that deception which gave Amundsen priority England could not be credited with the dis¬ covery of either the North or South Poles. Scott was so shocked when he learned that Amundsen had out¬ witted and beaten him that he preferred death to an inglorious return home.
I ask again, are the Sacred Writings to be attacked and discredited because of allegations by such men as Magellan, Cook, Peary, Amundsen and Scott? The answer should be, I think, ‘‘No.”
In closing this chapter on navigation, I submit for consideration the following questions: How could Amundsen and Scott reach approximately the point claimed to be the South Geographical Pole with the British charts to guide them in the various latitudes and longitudes that they reported, when, according to the Carnegie (non-magnetic ship) experts, those charts were incorrect as to all latitudes south of the equator down to the 60th parallel, with 30° more to go south before the 90th parallel would be reached,
66

NAVIGATION
with the charts 12° in error even at the 60th parallel? Especially, considering that Amundsen and Scott did not know at that time that the charts were wrong, as the Carnegie experts did not find the errors until after that alleged discovery of the Pole. How could Shackelton, with the use of such incorrect charts, go to any such points of latitude and longitude as he reported and be sure of it, when he also was ignorant of the errors which were found later by the Carnegie ex¬ perts?
Not only are plane earth projections used as in navigating the seas, but the plane factor also applies to the land as well as to the sea. Note the following:
“The Plane Table is used in the Coast Survey as the principal instrument for map¬ ping the topographical features of the coun¬ try, and is universally recognized as the most efficient and accurate means for that purposed U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
“The center of population of the country is determined by regarding the United States as a plane surface.” Boston Globe, October, 1921.
The principle of a plane surface controls observa¬ tions on both land and sea, but the plane maps and
67

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
charts now in general use showing the Mercator pro¬ jections, are quite different from the genuine plane projections of the flat earth theory. The latitudes and longitudes of the Mercator projections are represented by squares, whereas the latitudes on the flat earth pro¬ jections are shown as circles, and the longitudes as beginning at the north center and extending south¬ wards as straight lines diverging as they extend south¬ ward. But even with this difference, navigators con¬ tinue to rely to a great extent upon the Mercator charts and maps and mingle with them certain globular theory features and estimates. Such applications in¬ evitably result in many contradictions in navigation.

VI
Day and Night
To account for day and night on our earth is a problem that is as popularly misunderstood as the problem of the east to west or west to east circum¬ navigation of the earth. The argument resorted to by those persons who do not understand existing con¬ ditions and the application of certain factors that con¬ trol the problem of day and night, assert that if the earth were flat, then there would be day all the time and no night. Such an argument reveals at once that such claimants have not grasped the true situation.
An illuminating orb or device only lights a given area commensurate with the size and brilliance, power of penetration, distance, height and perspective of the orb. The sun as an illuminating body lights a cer¬ tain area of the earth. The area lighted is practically round and the center of the sun is directly over its center. The light becomes fainter as it extends to¬ ward and eventually reaches its limit of penetration, that limit being the rim or boundary of the lighted
69

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
area. All the area beyond the boundary is propor¬ tionately dark so far as the sun is concerned. Conse¬ quently we have dawn and twilight at the extreme edges, and elsewhere within lighted area we have complete day. Beyond the rim we have darkness and night, so far as the sun is concerned.
As the sun advances on its course westward, so also does the light from the sun advance westward, and becomes dawn to that portion of the earth that just previously has been night. This dawn is followed by complete day. At the same time the twilight boundary also advances and becomes twilight to that portion of the earth that just previously has been day, and twilight is followed by darkness, then by complete night. The process continues as the sun circles the earth from Cancer to Capricorn and Capricorn to Cancer. Some parts of the earth have more or less light or darkness and at different times than some other parts. Bear in mind the position of the sun relative to the different lengths of latitude, the equator, the north geographical pole and the midnight sun fea¬ ture, in combination with height of the sun above the earth, distance and perspective.
This process is well illustrated by a person carrying a lighted lantern at night in a flat field. The light
70

DAY AND NIGHT
illuminates a certain area of the ground, representing daylight. The ground outside the lighted area is dark and represents night. The rim of the lighted area represents dawn and twilight. As the person advances with the lantern, so too does the light of the lantern advance, the ground is progressively lighted and dark¬ ness follows in the rear.
According to the globular theory the sun is an im¬ mense orb, millions of miles distant from the earth, in comparison with which the earth is as a mustard seed to an orange. The insignificance of our earth in space is a favorite hobby with many who hold to the globular theory, and according to them, both the sun and the earth are suspended in space. The rays of light of the sun penetrate space in every direction and fill a cubical content three billion, six hundred million miles in diameter. The so-called insignificant “speck” of earth is located within that vast, brilliantly lighted area of space, being ninety to one hundred million miles distant from the sun. This distance is small in comparison with their estimate of the three billion, six hundred million miles penetrated by the light of the sun; consequently their theory of the location of the earth in that vast lighted area reveals that the tiny earth globe is completely surrounded by light. Just
71

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
as would be in the case of a mustard seed suspended in a room brilliantly lighted by a device that com¬ pletely and perfectly lighted the whole space and com¬ pletely excluded darkness. Under such conditions there would be perpetual light all the time on all sides of the mustard seed.
In view of all the conditions exigent to the globular theory relative to the sun and diffusion of its light, the argument resorted to so confidently by some per¬ sons that if the earth were flat there would be all day and no night, instead of applying to a flat surface actually applies to a globular form. The fact that we do have day and night on our earth does not bear out the alleged size and distance of the sun and the pene¬ trating power of sunlight.
According to the law of perspective as analyzed by some authorities, “a straight line infinitely long has its vanishing point, and a line lying in a plane like the sea also has its vanishing point.” Consequently, lines to the sun, to the moon and to ships at sea, relative to the horizon (which is called the vanishing trace of the system of planes), have their vanishing points in the trace of their planes. The analysis of such lines is further explained and demonstrated in Chapter VII
72

DAY AND NIGHT
relative to canals, and is made particularly clear by the example of the Panama Canal.
To account for day and night by the globular theory forces globularists to resort to extraordinary experi¬ ments to prove that the earth rotates. One of these is the so-called Pendulum Experiment. Some globular¬ ists accept it as proof, others reject it as ridiculous and not proof. Here again we disclose more contra¬ dictions and weak links in the chain of alleged proofs that are brought against Genesis.
In the Figure of the Earth, by J. von Gumpach, it appears that there were sixty-three experiments with the pendulum made in various latitudes north of the equator, and twenty-nine experiments south of the equator by Captains Foster and Kayter and General Sabine. All of these experiments demonstrated that the pendulum as a factor of proof is absolutely worth¬ less. There have been many other experiments re¬ sulting in failures reported in the English Mechanic of October 23, 1896; by Iconoclast in Earth Review, April-May, 1897; the Liverpood Mercury; the Man¬ chester Examiner Supplement, and in a lecture de¬ livered in Berlin, Germany, by Professor Shoepfer. A report of this lecture appears in the Scientific Amer¬ ican Supplement, of April 27, 1878. It discloses the
73

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT fact that Professor Shoepfer had been appointed to assist in experiments relative to the Leon Foucault’s pendulum theory, and the outcome of these experi¬ ments caused Professor Shoepfer to reject the Copernican theory that he had taught for many years, and persuaded him to believe that the earth does not re¬ volve on its axis and does not go around the sun, and that there is no proven evidence for such a theory.
Of course, Alfred Russel Wallace, Professor Painleve, and others referred to in this book, who also re¬ jected the rotation claim, were aware of the Pendulum Experiment claims by others, yet rejected those claims.
74

VII
Canals
According to the exigencies of the globular theory, “Canals have to be constructed in strict accordance with the rotundity of the earth; great engineering works could not endure for a day if they were con¬ structed on the theory that the earth is a plane. As a matter of fact, the apparent level at any point is con¬ tinually corrected at successive points as the survey advances, so that it shall correspond with the curvature of the earth, and the Panama and Suez Canals were constructed exactly in accord with the theory that the earth is round, and distinctly in disaccord with the theory that the earth is flat. So that the proponents of the flat earth theory assert, either with colossal impudence or colossal ignorance, that the engineer’s datum level indicates an absolute horizontal plane ex¬ tending the whole length of the work from Colon to Panama.” Such is the analysis and claim of Profes¬ sor Garrett P. Serviss as published in the Boston American under date of January 21, 1922.
75

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
It induces the following questions and reply. Why do all the plans and profile projections of the Panama Canal as used by the constructors, copies of which have appeared in various publications, show all lines drawn exactly in accord with the descriptions and claims of the advocates of the plane theory, and in dis¬ accord with the claims of Professor Serviss and other advocates of the globular theory? Why are such flat earth plans and projections used and so represented in various publications if they are wrong and false? Have any such globe earth plans and projections as indicated by Professor Serviss ever been drawn, used or represented in publications? And if they have, when, where and by whom? If not, why not?
Professor Serviss claims that it is colossal impu¬ dence or colossal ignorance on the part of advocates of the plane theory to claim that “the engineer’s datum level indicates an absolute horizontal plane extending the whole length of the work.” If his denial is correct and the claim of the flat earth experts is incorrect and false, then why did the British House of Parlia¬ ment issue in The Book of Standing Orders—“Im¬ peratively demand and require the engineers and con¬ structors of Great Britain, that in the case of construc¬ tion of a canal, cut, navigation, turnpike or other
76

CANALS
carriage road or railway, to have a datum horizontal line which shall he the same throughout the whole length of the work”?
How could the Chinese construct their Grand Canal, which is the largest in the world and beside which the Panama Canal is a pigmy, and their other canals and engineering works, when all such construction was done before the alleged discovery of the globular earth form? Prior to the alleged discovery and partial acceptance of the earth as a globular form, how could other canals be constructed in Europe and elsewhere when allowances were made for no such form or size of the earth?
“Roman Catholic Authorities were combatting and rejecting the globular theory and issuing edicts against it and restraining the faithful under penalty from be¬ lieving such a theory until 1758, A. D., under Pope Benedict XIV.” Astronomical Essays—Reverend G. V. Leahy, S. T. L., 1910. How then could any canal or engineering work be surveyed, estimated and constructed with allowances for the curvature of the earth as of a globular form by any Roman Catholic prior to the removal of that condemnatory decree in 1758 A. D.?
It appears that upon the request of an English
77

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
publication, the Earth Review of London, three re¬ ports were received from three English authorities relative to the problem of the alleged curvature of the earth in connection with the construction of canals and public works, substantially as follows:
In February, 1892, the Engineer’s Office of the Manchester Ship Canal Co., England, reported “that it was not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for curvature of the earth.”
In October, 1893, G. W. Winckler, Assoc. Inst. C. E., M. E. I. C., of England, a surveyor and engineer of many years’ experience, over his signature, reported concerning allowance made for the curvature of the earth, that “nothing of the sort is allowed.”
In January, 1896, T. Westwood, of Eng¬ land, a surveyor, over his signature, reported that “not the least allowance was made for curvature of the earth” (relative to a certain work) “although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed.”
In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Thomas Winship, a friend of mine, as to whether any allowance was
78

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT made for the curvature of the earth in the construc¬ tion of the Panama Canal, a reply was received from the Isthmian Canal Commission as follows—“In re to allowances for curvature of the earth in working the Canal, no allowance was made.”
Correspondence between the officials of the Panama Canal and myself relative to the feature of convexity of the earth, reveals their admissions that “Such con¬ vexity cannot be shown by or in any way through the construction plans and projections of the Panama Canal.” But said plans and projections do show that the construction corresponds with and applies to a flat or plane earth.
Arcs - therefore a chord
not drawn to scale but sufficient for illusuaiton
79

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
The Globular Theory Profile Projection
This sketch has eleven lines—six of those lines are vertical lines drawn as required by a globular form, and three of those lines marked B, C, D, stretch from Colon to Panama; B represents the high water line; C represents the mean sea level line, otherwise known as the datum line; D represents the low water line— each line representing about fifty miles linear measure¬ ment.
The uppermost line marked A represents the line indicating the course from the locks at Colon to the locks at Panama, a distance of about thirty-one miles. The lines marked A, B, C, D, are curved in arcs to conform to the requirements of the globular form theory. The line marked E is a chord for the lines marked B, C, D (especially for C, the datum line), or straight line between Colon and Panama, said chord line being shorter than the lines B, C, D. The dis¬ tance straight down from the middle of the line marked A to the middle of the line marked C, the datum line, is about eighty-five feet, and if continued straight down to the line marked E would have an additional length of 417 feet 8 inches, or a total of about 502 feet 8 inches from A to E.
80

CANALS
Thus a globular form projection for illustration requires five lines—four of them arched and one of them straight. The middle of the datum line C to Colon is about twenty-five miles and the allowance for curvature of the earth for this distance is 417 feet 8 inches, and same estimates apply from the middle of the datum line C to Panama, but the distance from Colon to Panama or vice versa being about fifty miles, then the allowance for curvature of the earth for the fifty miles would be 1,667.50 feet.
In addition to these lines marked A, B, C, D, E, there are six vertical lines marked F, G, H, I, J, K, a sufficient number of vertical lines to represent the direction upwards toward the respective zeniths, also representing the direction downward toward the in¬ terior center of the globular form. From thence they continue downward and emerge at the antipodes or nadir. As they continue upwards the lines diverge and the farther they are extended the more they di¬ verge. But the lines going downwards converge and meet and cross one another at or near the interior center of the earth; continuing downwards they separate more and more as they approach their re¬ spective antipodes.
Consequently, all such lines, estimates and applica-
81

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
tions would have to be complied with and so appear in illustrations connected with the Panama Canal con¬ struction plans, according to the claims of those who assert that the canal and similar works would not endure for a day if not actually constructed under such methods and applications.
The Flat Earth Profile Projection
This sketch has ten lines. Six are vertical lines and four are horizontal lines. Three of the lines marked B, C, D, stretch from Colon to Panama; B repre-

Colon

Panama

Flat or Plane profile projection Tlo arcs-therefore no chord
sents the high water line, C represents the mean sea level line, otherwise known as the horizontal datum line, and D represents the low water line; each line represents about fifty miles. The uppermost line
82

CANALS
marked A represents the course between the locks at Colon end and the locks at the Panama end, a distance of about thirty-one miles. All four lines are repre¬ sented as straight horizontal and no fifth line or chord is necessary or possible, as there is no arc. The dis¬ tance from the middle of the line A down straight to the datum line C, is about eighty-five feet.
In addition to these four lines, there are six vertical lines in the sketch, E, F, G, H, I, J, and all extending upwards toward their respective zeniths, and also in¬ dicating their downward direction to the low water line of the Panama Canal. Whether these six lines are extended upwards or downwards, they do not meet, diverge or converge but remain the same dis¬ tance apart at all points of their lengths, and to date no known nadir or visible antipodes exists. If the earth is flat, then such lines and conditions as are in¬ dicated in this sketch will exist and must be complied with, and will appear accordingly in all projections.
It is important that the law of perspective is demon¬ strated and established by this profile projection of the plane theory and by similar projections drawn and used in connection with the construction of the Panama and Suez Canals. It plainly answers the arguments of the globular form advocates who claim
83

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
that the curvature of the earth accounts for the appear¬ ance and disappearance of ships at sea over the horizon. This important feature of perspective ap¬ pears in the profile projections of the Panama Canal: the line marked A in the plane sketch is the line from the locks at Colon to the locks at Panama, this line being about thirty-one miles in length. Leaving Colon and sailing to Panama, whether the course is winding or not, ships recede from view, hull first and then the masts. In approaching Panama, the masts will ap¬ pear first, then the hull. Exactly the same conditions apply (barring interference by obstructions) to ships going from Panama to Colon. For each direction the same perspective applies equally and the same for all ships on all other courses. In the Culebra Cut, nine miles in length, ships disappear from view and appear to view exactly as ships do on other courses in going nine miles away from an observer toward the horizon; or coming from the horizon toward the ob¬ server. All these horizontal lines represent a perfect illustration of the law of perspective, solving the problem of the appearance and disappearance of ships and other objects at various distances, the rising and setting of moon and sun, the phenomenon of day and night on a flat surface. Therefore it completely an-
84

CANALS
swers and disposes of the alleged curvature and dip claims set forth by globularists.
While it requires some time and many words to explain these two sketches properly, the conspicuous difference between them may be seen at a glance.
Refraction as a factor has been ignored in the descriptions of both projections, because it does not consistently work out with the requirements of the globular theory estimates for alleged curvature, alti¬ tudes and distances in connection with the visibility or invisibility of objects. Refraction is a matter of atmospheric conditions, variable and uncertain, and it would apply more consistently, if applied at all, to the flat earth than to the globular form projection.
There are many projections of the Panama and Suez Canals, and such projections appear in various publications and are easily procured for examination. All of them are in accord with the flat earth cosmogony and in disaccord with the globular theory. During many years of investigation and inquiry, I have never been able to find, either for inspection or possession, even one globular theory projection of the Panama or Suez Canals, and I have never met or heard of any person who has ever seen or heard of any such globular earth projection. Such a situation induces the fol-
85

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
lowing question. Why are the profile projections of the Panama and Suez Canals always drawn, used and published in accord with the flat earth theory, if that theory is wrong and in disaccord with the form of the earth, and not drawn, used and published in accord with the globular theory, if that theory is right and in accord with the form of the earth as claimed by many?
It is not necessary for one to go to the seashore to observe how ships appear to view when approaching and disappear when departing in relation to distance and horizon, or how the moon and sun appear in rela¬ tion to the horizon and the phenomenon of day and night. Necessary investigation has already been made and the essential information has all been revealed and accounted for by the straight lines that apply to both the construction of the Panama Canal and to the flat earth of Bible cosmogony. The Panama Canal and the Suez Canal projections and construction plainly and conspicuously tally with Scripture, and definitely contradict and refute the contentions of those who advocate and support the globular theory.
86

VIII
Universal Gravitation
It is not generally known that there are several conflicting theories as to the so-called Gravitation Theory which is alleged as necessary to the mainten¬ ance of our earth and which is used to support the Copernican-Newtonian System or School. This theory has its advocates and its opponents, even within the ranks of its followers, conflicting not only as to the existence or non-existence of gravitation and its operations, but as to its cause, origin and necessity. Such wholesale opposition, emphatic contradiction and ridicule would indicate that there is nothing left of the law of gravitation for a would-be believer to believe, or a would-be skeptic to oppose. Gravitation is a subject exposed to the ridicule of both globularists and flat earth advocates, and in view of such conditions it is practically a waste of time to give any more than a very brief consideration. For this reason, I will only cite from one English authority and two authorities in the United States.
87

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
Alfred Russel Wallace in his opinion finally placed the earth and not the sun, in the center of the universe. Wallace’s contention disposes of the orbital course of the earth around the sun, and thus disposes of the sun’s power of gravitation which holds the earth in its course.
A letter to me dated June 9, 1922, contains the ad¬ mission that “The latest results of physics show a lack of any evidence that the earth moves in space.” This not only confirms Wallace but confirms the absolute nothingness of alleged gravitation. In addition to these two admissions, we have the admission by emi¬ nent scientists in a general meeting of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, April 22, 1922, that the gravitation law is false and to be rejected with both the Newton and Einstein Theories. And so it goes, and yet other intellectuals, especially among the clergy, swallow the bait, hook and line, just as if gravitation was a proved fact and unanimously ac¬ cepted as such.
Let us now ascertain how all these remarkable and amazing theories are arrived at and presented to the unsuspecting public. The following was published by Professor G. P. Serviss in the Boston American, May 27, 1914:
88

UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION
“For many minds the chief charm of astronomy is the immense stimulus that it offers to the imagination. With all the uni¬ verse before him where to choose, a man can make worlds, suns and solar systems to suit himself, while science furnishes him with stupendous figures, illimitable prospects, mys¬ terious objects, suggestions of uncompre¬ hended laws and of a boundless variety of conditions based upon an essential unity of composition which can be pressed into serv¬ ice to support almost any theory, however extraordinary and however contrary to human experience.”
Evidently such is the character of the evidence used to discredit the Bible and the declaration of Jesus Christ when on the Cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”
89

IX
Speed of Light
According to the Copernican-Newtonian School ad¬ vocating the globular theory, the estimates of the dis¬ tances from the earth of the sun and other orbs in space are so conflicting and unreliable that it is difficult to make a selection; in fact, it is simply take your choice, one estimate is as correct as any other of the generous supply offered by some scientists.
It appears that the principal factor used to determine the distance of the sun and various orbs in space, is called speed of light. This unit of measurement was first used by Ole Roemer in 1676, relative to the posi¬ tions of Jupiter’s moons in connection with the width of the earth’s orbital course around the sun, the width of said course at that time being estimated as about 192,000 miles; it has subsequently been estimated as approximately 186,324 miles. Therefore light moves about 186,324 miles a second.
Even with this alleged definite basis to determine distances, the estimates of astronomers and scientists
90

SPEED OF LIGHT

vary so widely that they might almost as well have no basis. Some of the estimates of some of the globularists as to the distance of the sun from the earth are as follows:

Copernicus’ computation,

3,391,200 miles

Kepler’s

12,376,800

Newton’s

about 40,000,000

Martin’s

81 to 82,000,000

Cassini’s

85,000,000

Airy and Stone’s

91,400,000

Hansen’s

91,659,000

Ball’s

about 92,700,000

Laing’s

93,000,000

Dilworth’s

93,726,900

Encke’s

95,274,000

Hinds’

95,298,260

Huyghens’

96,000,000

Gillis and Gould’s “more than 96,000,000

Mayer’s

“

104,000,000

The transit of Venus occurred June 3, 1869, and various governments made observations. In Europe there were fifty stations, in Asia six stations and in America seventeen stations and the estimates made by all of them varied from eighty-eight million miles to one hundred and nine million miles. Other experts of the four schools supporting the globular theory

91

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
disagreed, not only as to distance but as to the basis of computation. They denied the assumption that there was any orbital movement of the earth around the sun to furnish a basis for determining the al¬ leged speed of light.
It has been claimed that the most rapid motion known is the passage of a ray of light or an electrical current. But even this speed, said to be 186,324 miles a second, is slow in comparison with the rapidity of vision, for the various enormous distances of sun, moon and stars from the earth are bridged by a simple glance of the eye without any difference in the time required, whether the distance be thousands, millions, billions or trillions of miles. Similar absurdities are revealed in the computation of the sizes of various stars, the measurement of the speed of light, and the duration of the so-called light years, as well as the alleged enormous length of time that it takes for light to travel from an orb to the earth, while it takes, as a matter of fact, only an insignificant time for eyesight to travel to any of the orbs.
The alleged distances from the earth of the moon, sun and other orbs in space and the time required to reach them as calculated by some astronomers un¬ der the so-called light-year estimates, have attracted
92

SPEED OF LIGHT
the attention of some clergymen relative to another Biblical statement, and have induced the inquiry as to the possibility of any such actual departure from the earth and arrival elsewhere. Consider, in this connection, the words of Jesus Christ when He was on the Cross: “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”
It appears that a certain class of astronomers claim that the speed of light is about 186,000 miles a second, that it travels in the form of ether waves, that each wave, after it leaves the surface of its source becomes detached from and independent of its source. When the ether wave strikes the retina of the eye it pro¬ duces the sensation that we call light. Now, if a star is two hundred light-years distant, the light-wave that is now entering our eyes left the star two hundred years ago, and if that star should be extinguished to¬ day it would be two hundred years before we would be aware of the fact, for it would be that long before the last of the ether-waves now en route from the star would enter our eyes.” Isabel M. Lewis, of the United States Naval Observatory, Boston Transcript, Octo¬ ber 27, 1923. Also letters to author dated November and December, 1923.
Another school of astronomers and scientists admit
93

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
that: “For a long time we have believed that light is a wave-motion of some hypothetical thing called ether. This theory never was satisfactory; it was not reason¬ able. Finally the belief in an ether had to be aban¬ doned. The radio waves and light waves are electro¬ magnetic waves, that is, periodic variations of the electro-magnetic field in space.” Charles P. Steinmetz, quoted by Professor Larkin, who added—“Not waves, only variations.” Boston Advertiser, Decem¬ ber 18, 1922.
Other experts reject both the aforesaid theories be¬ cause these take for granted the orbital course of the earth around the sun, while these last scholars deny that there is such a course and consequently reject the speed of light factor as essential to the problem.
Thus it appears these three classes of astronomers and students (all globularists) conspicuously dis¬ agree, and disclose the fact that the speed of light problem is a very unsettled one, even among them¬ selves. In view of this radical difference of opinion, it seems only fair to enquire which theory is correct, or are any of the theories correct ?
Many persons, however, mistakenly believe that the speed of light problem has been satisfactorily settled beyond a doubt, depending upon “taken for granted”
94

SPEED OF LIGHT
as their reliance for acceptance. Other investigators have quite different ideas on the subject of the pro¬ jection of light, and their conclusions render the con¬ tradictions and uncertainties of the aforesaid globularists more conspicuous than ever.
Observe the light from a match, candle, an electric bulb, lantern, lighthouse, or searchlight, illuminate radially or in stream-line. The rays of light are pro¬ jected and diffused for a limited distance only. This distance may, to a certain extent, be increased by in¬ creasing the power or size of the source of light. A lighted lantern in a field spreads its light rays only a very little distance, yet its light may be visible to an observer a mile or more distant, barring obstructions and the atmosphere permitting. The headlights of an automobile project their rays of light a compara¬ tively few feet, but the distance may, to a certain extent, be increased by increasing the illuminating power or changing the lenses. Yet automobile head¬ lights, headlights of locomotives and signal lights are visible to an observer several miles distant. A light that is receding from an observer is followed by the retina of the observer’s eye with more or less strain, and can be followed further and more easily with the aid of a glass; showing that instead of the
95

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT
light approaching the eye, it is the retina of the eye that follows the light. But if the receding light changed its course and approached in the direction of the observer, there would be a corresponding lessening of strain on the retina as the visibility of the light in¬ creased and the distance between the light and the observer decreased.
If light carried on and on independent of its source, whether the source was extinguished or not, as some globularists claim, then it would appear to be un¬ necessary to increase the power of the lighting device of a lighthouse, as a device of ordinary power would be sufficient for all purposes. In many instances, however, the power of the illuminating device has to be increased to overcome distance.
It is furthermore evident that it is the control of the source of light which controls its dimness or in¬ tensity, its fluctuations and its extinguishment. This is true, of course, allowing for atmospheric conditions. Similar conditions and principles apply to all lumina¬ ries and sources of light whether celestial or terres¬ trial. And instead of this light question being an ab¬ struse problem beyond the comprehension of the lay¬ man, it resolves itself into a much simpler matter than many scientists would have us believe.
96

X

Curvature

According to advocates of the globular theory, the curvature of the earth amounts to about eight inches to a square mile. This curvature interposes to pre¬ vent, partially or entirely, the view of objects at a distance, consequently it is necessary toi ascertain whether or not this estimate for curvature applies correctly. The following calculations are based on the globular calculation of curvature.

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth

mile
<<
<( tt a *t tt tt tt tt tt

8 inches

32

tt

6 feet

10 “ 16 tt

8

“

8

tt

24 “ 32 tt 42 tt

8

a

8

tt

54
66 “ 80 tt 96 a

8

tt

8

tt

97

HIS PRONOUNCEMENT

Thirteenth Fourteenth Fifteenth Sixteenth Seventeenth Eighteenth Nineteenth Twentieth

Mile

112 feet 130 (t
150
170 194 a 216 tt 240 u
266

8 inches 8 “

8

M

8

U

8

“

8

U

Refraction was ignored in making these calculations but according to the expert’s allowance for refraction requires a reduction of about one seventh; for in¬ stance, the sixth mile estimate of twenty-four feet, would be reduced to about twenty feet, six inches. Refraction, however, as a factor applicable to the globular form exclusively, is much disputed, for when it is applied it does not consistently or satisfac¬ torily overcome the difficulties that globularists anx¬ iously desire to overcome in order to meet and defeat the arguments of the flat earthians. The proofs of the latter group, however, remain valid, for objects are visible at distances and heights all out of proportion to curvature estimates even when allowance for re¬ fraction has been made. Such conspicuous inconsist¬ encies seriously damage the curvature claim.
Abrupt drops or dips from mile to mile are con-
98