​​​200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball.

​​ ​1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

 2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

 3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.

19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.

21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.

25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

27) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, landing airplanes on such fast-moving runways which face all manner of directions North, South, East, West and otherwise would be practically impossible, yet in reality such fictional concerns are completely negligible.

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.

30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."

31) Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”

32) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.

33) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.

34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.

35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.

36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.

37) Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from 1838 to 1842, and in his journals also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.

38) To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.

39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.

44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.

45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.

47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.

48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.

49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.

50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.

51) Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Fahrenheit, and a record low of -135.8! The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees. Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. On a tilting, wobbling, ball-Earth spinning uniformly around the Sun, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures and seasons should not vary so greatly.

52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness - never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.”

53) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.

54) At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.

55) If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!

56) The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!

57) The establishment claims the Midnight Sun IS experienced in Antarctica but they conveniently do not have any uncut videos showing this, nor do they allow independent explorers to travel to Antarctica during the winter solstice to verify or refute these claims. Conversely, there are dozens of uncut videos publicly available showing the Arctic Midnight Sun and it has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt.

58) The Royal Belgian Geographical Society in their “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st! This is completely at odds with the ball-Earth theory, but easily explained by the flat-Earth model. The Midnight Sun is seen from high altitudes in extreme Northern latitudes during Arctic summer because the Sun, at its inner-most cycle, is circling tightly enough around the polar center that it remains visible above the horizon for someone at such a vantage point. Likewise, in extreme Southern latitudes during Arctic summer, the Sun completely disappears from view for over 2 months because there at the Northern Tropic, at the inner-most arc of its boomerang journey, the Sun is circling the Northern center too tightly to be seen from the Southern circumference.

59) Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”

60) Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.

61) If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved even at sea-level, and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer. A hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight. In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance or height of the observer.

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.

63) In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.

64) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”

65) Also Quoting Dr. Rowbotham, “On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”

66) Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, sextants and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.

67) The distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end. It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor. This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles. Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!

68) The Philadelphia skyline is clearly visible from Apple Pie Hill in the New Jersey Pine Barrens 40 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring in the 205 foot elevation of Apple Pie Hill, the Philly skyline should remain well-hidden beyond 335 feet of curvature.

69) The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.

70) From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.

71) It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.

72) October 16, 1854 the Times newspaper reported the Queen’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull recording they were able to see the 300 foot tall dock tower from 70 miles away. On a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring their 10 foot elevation above the water and the tower’s 300 foot height, at 70 miles away the dock tower should have remained an entire 2,600 feet below the horizon.

73) In 1872 Capt. Gibson and crewmates, sailing the ship “Thomas Wood” from China to London, reported seeing the entirety of St. Helena Island on a clear day from 75 miles away. Factoring in their height during measurement on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, it was found the island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight.

74) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Gorgona can often be seen 81 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Gorgona should be hidden beyond 3,332 feet of curvature.

75) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.

76) From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.

77) Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.

78) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.

79) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley’s 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.

80) In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!

81) The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.

82) The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.

83) The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.

84) The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.

85) The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.

86) The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.

87) The lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!

88) The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.

89) The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world were a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight.

90) The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.

91) The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

92) The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

93) The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!

94) From the highland near Portsmouth Harbor in Hampshire, England looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land come together composes a perfectly straight line 22 statute miles long. According to the ball-Earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the center on each side to account for the necessary curvature. The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level.

95) On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!

96) From “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” by William Carpenter, “If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of ‘curvature’ demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”

97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.

98) NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.

99) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

100) If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model.

101) Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in.

102) Some heliocentrists have tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective on plane (flat) surfaces. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible. In the ball-Earth model the horizon is claimed to be the curvature of the Earth, whereas in reality, the horizon is known to be simply the vanishing line of perspective based on the strength of your eyes, instruments, weather and altitude.

103) There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.

104) The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.

105) Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! These are all only possible because the “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with the stars rotating over and around.

106) The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer. Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible.

107) Ring magnets of the kind found in loudspeakers have a central North pole with the opposite “South” pole actually being all points along the outer circumference. This perfectly demonstrates the magnetism of our flat Earth, whereas the alleged source of magnetism in the ball-Earth model is emitted from a hypothetical molten magnetic core in the center of the ball which they claim conveniently causes both poles to constantly move thus evading independent verification at their two “ceremonial poles.” In reality the deepest drilling operation in history, the Russian Kola Ultradeep, managed to get only 8 miles down, so the entire ball-Earth model taught in schools showing a crust, outer-mantle, inner-mantle, outer-core and inner-core layers are all purely speculation as we have never penetrated through beyond the crust.

108) The mariner’s compass is an impossible and non-sensical instrument for use on a ball-Earth. It simultaneously points North and South over a flat surface, yet claims to be pin-pointing two constantly moving geomagnetic poles at opposite ends of a spinning sphere originating from a hypothetical molten metal core. If compass needles were actually drawn to the North pole of a globe, the opposing “South” needle would actually be pointing up and off into outer-space.

109) There are no fixed “East” or “West” points just as there is no fixed “South.” The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left.

110) Magellan and others’ East/West circumnavigations of Earth are often quoted as proof of the ball model. In actual fact, however, sailing or flying at rights angles to the North pole and eventually returning to one’s original location is no more difficult or mysterious than doing so on a globe. Just as an architect’s compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth.

111) Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/Southbound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. The fact that there has yet to be a single verified North/South circumnavigation of Earth serves as standing proof the world is not a ball.

112) The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day.

113) The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous. Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm.

114) Quoting, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers” by Lacantius, “A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”

115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

116) There has also never been a single experiment in history showing an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause another smaller mass to orbit around it. The magic theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon and satellites to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth. If these were both true then people should be able to jump up and start orbiting circles around the Earth, or the Moon should have long ago been sucked into the Earth. Neither of these theories have ever been experimentally verified and their alleged results are mutually exclusive.

117) Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity, especially at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. And if the Moon’s gravity truly did supersede the Earth’s causing the tides to be drawn towards it, there should be nothing to stop them from continuing onwards and upwards towards their great attractor.

118) Furthermore, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly and do not follow the Moon. Earth’s lakes, ponds, marshes and other inland bodies of water also inexplicably remain forever outside the Moon’s gravitational grasp! If “gravity” was truly drawing Earth’s oceans up to it, all lakes, ponds and other bodies of standing water should certainly have tides as well.

119) It is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

120) The etymology of the word “planet” actually comes from late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai “wandering (stars),” from planasthai “to wander,” of unknown origin, possibly from PIE *pele “flat, to spread” or notion of “spread out.” And Plane (n) “flat surface,” c. 1600, from Latin planum “flat surface, plane, level, plain,” planus “flat, level, even, plain, clear.” They just added a “t” to our Earth plane and everyone bought it.

121) When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.

122) Quoting Allen Daves, “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.”

123) Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.

124) Amateur balloon footage taken above the clouds has provided stunning visual proof that the Sun cannot be millions of miles away. In several shots you can see a clear hot-spot reflecting on the clouds directly below the Sun’s spotlight-like influence. If the Sun were actually millions of miles away such a small, localized hot-spot could not occur.

125) Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds.

126) The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun, yet their flawed current model places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout most of the Earth.

127) The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer.

128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.

129) To quote William Carpenter, “Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that ‘six thousand million million million tons’ is ‘rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever’ with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a ‘very slow coach,’ with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it - and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window - all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all and that the Earth is not a globe.”

130) From “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion."

131) NASA and modern astronomy maintain that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like habitation which man has actually flown to and set foot on. They claim the Moon is a non-luminescent planetoid which receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality is, however, that the Moon is observably not a solid body, it is clearly circular, but not spherical, and not in any way an Earth-like planetoid which humans could set foot on. In fact, the Moon has been proven largely transparent and completely self-luminescent, shining with its own unique light.

132) The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay. This proves that Sun and Moon light are different, unique, and opposites as they are in the geocentric flat model.

133) In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees. So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties.

134) Furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light. Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.

135) Not only is the Moon clearly self-luminescent, shining its own unique light, but it is also largely transparent. When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon! The Royal Astronomical Society has on record many such occurrences throughout history which all defy the heliocentric model.

136) Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.

137) Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. They claim the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy, but as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and some other explanation must be sought.

138) Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships’ hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

139) Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, NOT the alleged “curvature” of Earth.

140) Foucault’s Pendulums are often quoted as proof of a rotating Earth but upon closer investigation prove the opposite. To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing. If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion. If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

141) The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

142) People claim that if the Earth were flat, they should be able to use a telescope and see clear across the oceans! This is absurd, however, as the air is full of precipitation especially over the oceans, and especially at the lowest, densest layer of atmosphere is NOT transparent. Picture the blurry haze over roads on hot, humid days. Even the best telescope will blur out long before you could see across an ocean. You can, however, use a telescope to zoom in MUCH more of our flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.

143) People claim that if the Earth were flat, with the Sun circling over and around us, we should be able to see the Sun from everywhere all over the Earth, and there should be daylight even at night-time. Since the Sun is NOT 93 million miles away but rather just a few thousand and shining down like a spotlight, once it has moved significantly far enough away from your location it becomes invisible beyond the horizon and daylight slowly fades until it completely disappears. If the Sun were 93 million miles away and the Earth a spinning ball, the transition from daylight to night would instead be almost instantaneous as you passed the terminator line.

144) Pictures of the Moon appearing upside-down in the Southern hemisphere and right-side up in the North are often cited as proof of the ball-Earth, but once again, upon closer inspection, provide another proof of the flat model. In fact, time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.

145) Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc. We only ever see the same one face (albeit at various inclinations) of the Moon, yet it is claimed that there is another “dark side of the Moon” which remains hidden. NASA states the Moon spins opposite the spin of the Earth in such a perfectly synchronized way that the motions cancel each other out so we will conveniently never be able to observe the supposed dark-side of the Moon outside of their terrible fake CGI images. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica would see a different face from those at the equator, yet they do not – just the same flat face rotated at various degrees.

146) The ball-Earth model claims the Moon orbits around the Earth once every 28 days, yet it is plain for anyone to see that the Moon orbits around the Earth every single day! The Moon’s orbit is slightly slower than the Sun’s, but follows the Sun’s same path from Tropic to Tropic, solstice to solstice, making a full circle over the Earth in just under 25 hours.

147) The ball-Earth model claims the Sun is precisely 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times further away from Earth making them “falsely” appear exactly the same size. Once again, the ball model asks us to accept as coincidence something that cannot be explained other than by natural design. The Sun and the Moon occupy the same amount of space in the sky and have been measured with sextants to be of equal size and equal distance, so claiming otherwise is against our eyes, experience, experiments and common sense.

148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”

149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.

150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.

151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.

152) In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.

153) Quoting Reverend Thomas Milner’s “Atlas of Physical Geography,” we find that, “Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles. The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot. The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”

154) The Felix Baumgartner Red Bull dive outside camera shows the same amount of “curvature of Earth” from surface-level to jump-height proving it to be a deceiving fish-eyed wide-angle lens, while the inside regular camera shows a perfectly flat horizon, eye level at 128,000 feet, which is only consistent with a flat plane.

155) Some people claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth out their airplane windows. The glass used in all commercial airplanes, however, is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight effect mixed with confirmation bias people mistake for being the alleged curvature of the Earth. In actuality, the fact that you can see the horizon at eye-level at 35,000 feet out both port/starboard windows proves the Earth is flat. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but "outer-space" from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, it’s because the Earth is flat!

156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.

157) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the atmosphere near the equator would be spinning around at over 1000mph, the atmosphere over the mid-latitudes would be spinning around 500mph, and gradually slower down to the poles where the atmosphere would be unaffected at 0mph. In reality, however, the atmosphere at every point on Earth is equally unaffected by this alleged force, as it has never been measured or calculated and proven non-existent by the ability of airplanes to fly unabated in any direction without experiencing any such atmospheric changes.

158) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the higher the altitude, the faster the spinning atmosphere would have to be turning around the center of rotation. In reality, however, if this were happening then rain and fireworks would behave entirely differently as they fell down through progressively slower and slower spinning atmosphere. Hot-air balloons would also be forced steadily faster Eastwards as they ascended through the ever increasing atmospheric speeds.

159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.

160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards. Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body.

161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.” The fact that this never happens, artificial horizons remain level at pilot’s desired altitudes and do NOT require constant downwards adjustments, proves the Earth is not a ball.

162) All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green-screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes.

163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.

164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.

165) NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.

166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”

167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.

168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.

171) NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth.

172) If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.

173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.

174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.

175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.

176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.

177) In the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” you can watch official leaked NASA footage showing Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, for almost an hour, using transparencies and camera-tricks to fake shots of a round Earth! They communicate over audio with control in Houston about how to accurately stage the shot, and someone keeps prompting them on how to effectively manipulate the camera to achieve the desired effect. First, they blacked out all the windows except for a downward facing circular one, which they aimed the camera towards from several feet away. This created the illusion of a ball-shaped Earth surrounded by the blackness of space, when in fact it was simply a round window in their dark cabin. Neil Armstrong claimed at this point to be 130,000 miles from Earth, half-way to the Moon, but when camera-tricks were finished the viewer could see for themselves the astro-nots were not more than a couple dozen miles above the Earth’s surface, likely flying in a high-altitude plane!

178) People claim Google Earth somehow proves the ball model without realizing that Google Earth is simply a composite program of images taken from high-altitude planes and street-level car-cameras superimposed onto a CGI model of a ball Earth. The same could be just as easily modeled onto a square Earth or any other shape and therefore cannot be used as proof of Earth’s rotundity.

 179) If the Earth were constantly spinning Eastwards 1000mph then airplane flight durations going Eastwards vs. Westwards should be significantly different. If the average commercial airliner travels 500mph, it follows that Westbound equatorial flights should reach their destination at approximately thrice the speed as their Eastbound return flights. In reality, however, the differences in East/Westbound flight durations usually amount to a matter of minutes, and nothing near what would occur on a 1000mph spinning ball Earth.

180) The spinning ball model dictates that the Earth and atmosphere would be moving together at approximately 500mph at the mid-latitudes where an LA to NYC flight takes place. The average commercial airliner traveling 500mph takes 5.5 hours traveling East with the alleged rotation of the Earth, so the return flight West should take only 2.75 hours, but in fact we find the average NYC to LA flight takes 6 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

181) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from Tokyo to LA take an average of 10.5 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 5.25 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 11.5 hours, another flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

182) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from NY to London take an average of 7 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 3.5 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 7.5 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

183) Flights Eastwards from Chicago to Boston with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2.25 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of just over an hour, but in actual fact take an average of 2.75 hours, once again, completely inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

184) Flights Eastwards from Paris to Rome with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 1 hour, but in actual fact have an average flight duration of 2 hours 10 minutes, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

185) We are told that the Earth and atmosphere spin together at such a perfect uniform velocity that no one in history has ever seen, heard, felt or measured the supposed 1000mph movement. This is then often compared to traveling in a car at uniform velocity, where we only feel the movement during acceleration or deceleration. In reality, however, even with eyes closed, windows up, over smooth tar in a luxury car at a mere uniform 50mph, the movement absolutely can be felt! At 20 times this speed, Earth’s imaginary 1000mph spin would most certainly be noticeable, felt, seen and heard by all.

186) People sensitive to motion sickness feel distinct unease and physical discomfort from motion as slight as an elevator or a train ride. This means that the 1000mph alleged uniform spin of the Earth has no effect on such people, but add an extra 50mph uniform velocity of a car and their stomach starts turning knots. The idea that motion sickness is nowhere apparent in anyone at 1000mph, but suddenly comes about at 1050mph is ridiculous and proves the Earth is not in motion whatsoever.

187) The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch. 

188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.

189) The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam, and many other holy books describe and purport the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” The Bible also repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around) giving a scriptural proof the Earth is not a spinning ball.

190) Cultures the world over throughout history have all described and purported the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, Chinese, Native Americans and literally every ancient civilization on Earth had a geocentric flat-Earth cosmology. Before Pythagoras, the idea of a spinning ball-Earth was non-existent and even after Pythagoras it remained an obscure minority view until 2000 years later when Copernicus began reviving the heliocentric theory.

191) From Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to modern astronauts like Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins, to director of NASA and Grand Commander of the 33rd degree C. Fred Kleinknecht, the founding fathers of the spinning ball mythos have all been Freemasons! The fact that so many members of this, the largest and oldest secret society in existence have all been co-conspirators bringing about this literal “planetary revolution” is beyond the possibility of coincidence and provides proof of organized collusion in creating and maintaining this multi-generational deception.

 192) Quoting “Terra Firma” by David Wardlaw Scott, “The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses … Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the sciences.’ Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system: ‘The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it.’ What a very sad position for an ‘exact science’ to be in is this!”

193) No child or un-indoctrinated man in their right-mind would ever conclude or even conceive given to their own devices, based on their own personal observations, that the Earth was a spinning ball revolving around the Sun! Such imaginative theories nowhere present in anyone’s daily experience require and have required massive amounts of constant propaganda to uphold the illusion.

194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”

195) Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.

196) Quoting Marshall Hall, “In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude."

 197) Some people claim there is no motive for such a grand-scale deception and that flat or a ball makes no difference. By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible. By surreptitiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun-worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no God, and everyone is just an accident, then all that really matters is me, me, me. They have turned Madonna, the Mother of God, into a material girl living in a material world. Their rich, powerful corporations with slick Sun-cult logos sell us idols to worship, slowly taking over the world while we tacitly believe their “science,” vote for their politicians, buy their products, listen to their music, and watch their movies, sacrificing our souls at the altar of materialism. To quote Morris Kline, “The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations.”

198) Some say the idea of an inter-generational world-wide conspiracy to delude the masses sounds implausible or unrealistic, but these people need only familiarize themselves with the works and writings of Freemasons themselves, for example John Robison who exposed this in his 1798 book, “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried Out in the Secret Meetings of the Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.” Supreme Commander of the 33rd degree Albert Pike was quite forth-coming in several letters regarding the Masons ultimate goal of world domination, and in the Zionist “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” the exact plan by which this would be and has been carried out is completely disclosed.

199) From “Foundations of Many Generations” by E. Eschini, “The one thing the fable of the revolving Earth has done, it has shown the terrible power of a lie, a lie has the power to make a man a mental slave, so that he dares not back the evidence of his own senses. To deny the plain and obvious movement of the Sun he sees before him. When he feels himself standing on an Earth utterly devoid of motion, at the suggestion of someone else he is prepared to accept that he is spinning furiously round. When he sees a bird flying, and gaining over the ground, he is prepared to believe that the ground is really travelling a great number of times faster than the bird, finally, in order to uphold the imagination of a madman, he is prepared to accuse his Maker of forming him a sensiferous lie.”

200) And finally, from Dr. Rowbotham, “Thus we see that this Newtonian philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions. Such a ‘juggle and jumble’ of fancies and falsehoods extended and intensified as in theoretical astronomy is calculated to make the unprejudiced inquirer revolt with horror from the terrible conjuration which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its further progress; to endeavour to over-throw the entire edifice, and to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the learning, the patience, the perseverance and devotion for which they have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld; but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot be otherwise than regretted, and ought to be by every possible means uprooted.”


For more information about our Flat Earth read “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” by Eric Dubay and visit:


FIG. 3.

Virtual Games

Moin together, 
I'm a bit baffled if the newly created by Aeranthropos Article Virtual Games . In Siegbert A. Warwitz, Anita Rudolf: On the Meaning of Playing. Reflections and game ideasthe term is apparently used, but otherwise the article only deals with Lemmafremdes like virtual worlds or generally describes the subject of video games. Google does not speak German or English. This seems to me to be the TF and the attempt to establish a concept by a single pair of authors, in addition the article does not provide a definition of the lemma in the sense of a delimitation of related terms. My first thought was "request for deletion", but maybe I've overlooked something or simply have too little knowledge of the matter. What do you all mean? Best
regards, Grueslayer 07:26, 21. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

The term "virtual games" is found by Google. At least the term is well established, probably even with Ludologen. Whether he is really needed as a synonym for "video games" par excellence, I doubt it very strong. Or does anyone call older video games like Pac-Man virtual games? I would not delete the article, but feel the author sometimes on the tooth and scientific literature claim (which must exist if the term is really as established as shown) or defuse some statements in the article. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 11:03, 21. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

I am also urgently for a deletion request. This is somehow not an article. If anything, a completely new NPOV article would have to come from. Any (redundant) sweep over anything virtual and general games, including WP references a la The exemplary list of computer games by genre in Wikipedia reflects the broad spectrum of games now available on the gaming market and practiced in the game world. They range from ...Literature and evidence seem to have nothing to do with the lemma. The weblink is advertising for a single VR glasses. Maybe that's advertising for the one book? And the alleged synonyms electronic games or electronic games are something else IMHO. Eg LCD games or not even video games, but also electronic kits, toys like Furby or electronic learning games like Electric Questioner and much more. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 13:45, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

The last edits of Aeranthropos nourish in me the suspicion that he either does not know what he is writing about, or confuses the lemma with something, because in both cases it's about virtual reality . Aeranthropos, would you like to participate in the discussion here? Best regards, Grueslayer 14:02, 21. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

The lemma is about "virtual reality games ", in German "virtual games ", ie games that take place in a not real, but simulated world. That includes the term. The single vocabulary is used very differently on the gaming market. Here is historically a wild growth. The web links should point to local usage examples and show the use of terms. You are welcome to cancel or be replaced by others if the advertisement is suspected. I am for constructiveSuggestions very open and thankful. The literature refers to the respective statements and is suitable as evidence for this IMHO. I did not think up anything, but gave a lecture. What should go, what can stay? Please make further suggestions on the important topic and possibly on formulations. Thanks - Aeranthropos ( discussion ) 14:58, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

At least then the lemma would have to be changed (if it would be common in German). IMHO is not Lemmafähig. The complete content does not match IMHO a WP article and IMHO does not act on the other lemma. The criticism is also general, for example. Fascination also and does not fit. Especially since there is a wild growth. But the WP is not there to establish anything. In addition, there is already virtual_reality # Virtual_Realit.C3.A4t_f.C3.BCr_Video games . There are also games for one or the other VR system. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 15:09, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)
Moin Aeranthropos !
then you are about video games that are happening within a virtual reality , right? There is a corresponding section in the VR article - is that what you want to portray? The lemma would then be wrong, the translation of "virtual reality games" would have to be something like "virtual reality games" or "VR games", a German translation à la "virtual reality games" would be a bit bulky and given the actual use of the English term TF. There is no generic article about VR games in the de: WP nor in the en: WP, but that's not what your article wants to be, is it? Somehow I still do not know what you want to show what the Virtual Reality article does not yet contain.
Best regards, Grueslayer 15:14, 21. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

... games that take place in a not real, but simulated world ... All game worlds are not real and are simulated. But all games are not VR. So there are also many content errors. And VR game lists may be listed by hardware, such as: List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 15:17, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

"Virtual games (also electronic games or English games Virtual Reality Games) is the generic term of science for a group of games that are characterized by the fact that they use the modern media as the basis of playing and act with their help in an imaginary world . " Virtual Reality Games is more likely to mean that computer games use a specific technology to put the player into the gaming world (keyword VR glasses). So in my opinion Virtual Reality Games are a subgroup of (digital electronic) computer games, depending on the type of presentation. Computer games themselves are in turn a subset of electronics games in general, which also include analog electronic. Virtual games is an extremely unfortunate translation and I can not imagine that such a misleading term is actually used in ludology. By literature, however, I like to convince myself of the opposite. Best regards,Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 15:22, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

It is not just about video games, but also about the electronic or digital based game forms, so the generic term. "Simulated world" is meant in this (technical) sense. "Virtual Games" is not a translation of English expression, but a German parallel term that does not have to be identical to that, but is used as quoted. After all, the book has already been published in the 4th edition and should therefore be acceptable as a well-founded source .-- Aeranthropos ( discussion ) 15:41, 21. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

But not all games realize game worlds ... - the artist formerly known as 04:28, 23. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

Aeranthropos, Virtual Reality games refers to games for VR glasses. Your weblinks document the same. If anything, it's about ~ virtual worlds in computer games . In any case, the self-references on Wikipedia do not work, at least not without detour from outside. This generates something new. The artist formerly known as 04:28, 23. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

"Virtual Reality Games" literally means "games in virtual reality". It's all about this. This includes games with VR glasses. Where is the problem ? The web links should document the use of the term. I do not insist on them. Can you offer better ones? Why not.- PS: In addition to the quoted textbook, the "European Information Center" at its "European Symposium" of 2009 already speaks in the title of "Virtual Games". Look in the bibliography. Aeranthropos ( discussion ) 10:52, 23 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

So, there are several problems. IMHO, the article is unrettable and the content does not even fit the lemma and is not WP-compatible. Lemmata must also be singular. Virtual game. That's practically impossible. There are games with VR / VR glasses. So virtual reality . And games in virtual worldsbut generally about game education and philosophy. Since we can not get any further here, I suggest letting the general public vote and therefore set an LA. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:50, 23. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

Addition: We also had an article game world . Has been deleted and is now redir to Fictional Universe . And that's also the game landscape # Virtual_Spiellandschaften . - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 15:50, 23 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Note: Here 's next. Best regards, Grueslayer 08:10, 24. Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Article has been deleted. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 13:32, 31 Oct. 2016 (CET)

Filing of this section was requested by: Kungfuman ( discussion ) 13:32, 31 Oct. 2016 (CET)

Banner Suggestions Part 1a


Since everyone is in favor of a banner and there are no suggestions, I created a few. Still rude, just as ideas. A font as LED segments would be interesting. Other, if necessary simpler suggestions later. Maybe something with little things like controller as a frame. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 10:55, Oct 13, 2016 (CEST)

Thanks for the designs! I like the compilation of the fourth in conjunction with the lettering of the first. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 8:40 pm, Oct 16, 2016 (CEST)

Personally, I liked the 1st or 3rd better, but the 3rd is a bit dark. The font is always the same. The 4th should perhaps be a framework drum (depending on whether the rest of the portal already has a frame, as currently or where the banner is.) For white you have the work of the exemption not the gamepad with hand first, a well-known figure (much better, moreover, there are hardly any free) and 2 different screenshots I think that's very good.2 Selecting good screenshots is of course difficult.Maybe changing the green of LinCity in white and taking in front of Grimrock, then the cut is not so hard Realistic, modern games like racing games are often hard to tell that it's a game, but you do not want too much retro. "ZX Spectrum Screenshots are still available. there are even more concrete expressions or wishes from others, otherwise I'm waiting for something else. Of course you can never please anyone. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:21, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Yes. Screen shots of retrotitles clearly show that this is about computer games, not least because the motifs shown are recognizable to non-players as well. When writing, I meant only the PacMac-C. I would not remove the lawn at LinCity, then you would not be able to see the roofs and sidewalks well. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 19:03, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

I changed it roughly. You can recognize roofs and sidewalks. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 19:17, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Great! The banner could be used on the portal page. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 21:51, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)
Filing of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 22:09, Nov 6, 2016 (CET)

Banner Suggestions Part 2a

Too bad that there were no reactions again. I once created, based on the banner of the portal: Transport_und_Verkehr times these 2. The banner there has a different syntax, probably more portable. In addition, the pictures are linked there. I used new, digital-looking fonts. Of course you can discuss all the details, such as color, size, font and images. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:38, 16 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Opensource games have no recognition value. But screenshots of popular titles are meaningless to many visitors. Take some gamepads and other hardware images that are visually easier to digest. Lara Croft, well, who needs it; I'm too old-fashioned. I would let fancy gimmicks, that comes unprofessional .-- the artist formerly known as 11:15, 17 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Only 2 of the 4 are open source, the rest (Vroom + Grimrock) are commercial. Lara Croft connects everyone with computer games. From 4 pictures I have a gamepad on top, I wanted to take a well-known character and hold 2 screenshots of different genres. You should take 1-2 screenshots already. IMHO it does not matter whether everyone immediately recognizes the title. The banner should show different aspects of the whole spectrum. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:01, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Do individual graphic elements from Super Mario levels actually reach the level of protection? Otherwise one could tinker with a level editor from blocks the lettering "portal computer games". Best regards, Grueslayer 11:46, 17 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

In Super Mario, IMHO actually has everything (which makes up the game) in the height of creation. I think the level of creation is quite high. And only some walls do not bring. There is the free Clone Super Maryo Chronicles. You could take that throughout. Parts of it also bring little, you do not know. Surroundings of small hardware things came to mind. Tetris, for example, would be very colorful. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:01, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

@Grueslayer: Do you mean this kind of graphic? A lettering on the basis of this block diagram could be below the height of creation. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 19:11, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Allowed Pac-Man Labyrinth
I am still very skeptical. I hope you only mean one of the walls. Either a graphic "remembers" the game (then the SH is exceeded) or it does not remember the game, so it has no memory value and is not useful. In addition, one should consider that the 8-bit games already consist of only a few pixels anyway. So the proportion would be quite high. The upper wall with the straight lines might go. But what does that have to do with a game? And the box with the question mark exceeds IMHO also the SH. There have been similar discussions already on commons. It was about Pac-Man and the simple spirits. Or even the Pac-Man Labyrinth (simple lines). Everything deleted. All that remained was that (see picture on the right). Also a doodle was deleted (despite the logo at that time). Pac-Man and Super Mario are well known and worthy of protection. Actually, you can hardly take something. The Pac-Man is in principle only as a cake and is already on the border. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 15:42, 23. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

I find these two also very appealing. Only the pixelated car racing game from my youth, I would not take it with. And the font of picture 1 (the post one over it) with the Pacman? Is that synonymous in the picture? / Pearli123 ( discussion ) 18:10, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Modern racing games are so realistic that you do not recognize them as a game. The choice is also limited and something retro can not hurt. It is also a commercial game with release. Maybe someone just remembers it and likes to remember his youth. Of course you can take something else. A (modern) train simulation is right next to it. What do you mean with the font in the picture? Sure, you can place it freely. Juts right in. Strange that everyone is suddenly on Pac-Man. I fell in the last second and fit exactly into the C. blue writing on a blue background is of course unfavorable. And white with yellow Pac-Man rather too. Or where? In the image selection, I wanted to actually synonymous to more bluish images, limit the project color, which restricts even more. It should not be too colorful either. The portal is already colorful enough (depending on the article of the month). With the narrow long banners, one should take into account that they actually only work on wide monitors. The greeting maybe gone, and the font in the middle smaller or shorter. Baubles of the font can be made at most with these rather simple banners. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:26, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

So about? In normal non-widescreen monitors it would normally look different, contracted. Or should the font be in the pictures on the left? - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 19:30, 18 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Filing of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 22:09, Nov 6, 2016 (CET)

Missing article

I'm looking for an overview of missing articles on computer games, but I can not find something like this with you. Especially Japanese games and around it would interest me, but a general overview would be a start. Did you hide that somewhere? - Don-kun • Talk19:46, 3 Oct. 2016 (CEST) ps The links in the Navileiste above are terribly bad to read - blue on blue.

Moin don-kun ,
I'll see which bot aggregates the red links and what kind of input you have to deliver. Concerning. A little hint of the Japanese games: Relatively many Japanese adventure games have dead web links , and while I generally care about maintenance at Adventures, I do not get any further with the Japanese adventure games. Can you possibly take a look at it?
Many thanks and best regards, Grueslayer 10:49, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

I need such a list for a seminar at the Japanology in Leipzig. We probably will not fix web links;) - but maybe write a few games articles as well. As for the links, I can look at it, but lack of language skills and not much help. User: Mps is probably the better contact. - Don-kun • Talk 12:41, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

I once ran through the categories category: Ren'ai-Adventure and category: Erogē , you can see here . Does that help? The number indicates the number of hits. If you know more categories, let me know, for me Japanese games are a book with seven chrysanthemum emblems. ;-) Regards, Grueslayer 13:31, 4. Oct. 2016 (CEST)

An article about the publisher Comptiq I find extremely interesting. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 14:56, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Comptiq is a Bishojo games magazine. - Mps , た み ま た たDisk. 20:24, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Oh. There was / is, however, also a Comptiq, which distributed early 80s computer games in Japan. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 20:43, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

It's probably about item requests. We used to, was hired or majority rejected at that time. Of course you can look at the existing articles and complete the missing ones. I could have called the two cats. Otherwise, of course, there is of course little to do here. It is best to look into the interwikis or to translate. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:03, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

@ Grueslayer : I will note your evaluation times and maybe ask you in due course for an update. I also do not think of a way to select articles by country ... - Don-kun • Talk 19:31, 8 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Archiving of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:44, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)


Moin together, 
may someone for the article free-to-play to give this somewhat fragmented discussion his mustard? 
Many thanks and best regards, Grueslayer 10:46, 4 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Filing of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:43, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Banner Suggestions Pictures Part 3

Angry Birds Land Särkänniemi 9.jpg
Otakuthon 2014- Angry Bird (14843069090) .jpg

I still remembered current games or platforms like tablet and smartphone and games like Angry Birds or Candy Crush. Bzw free variants. Best also someone who is currently playing (as a hardware image) heads / faces but you should remove because of the personality rights. In non-free games, the screen must not be in the foreground, but only an accessory, so best of all free games or even retouching with another screen. Same problem with characters like Angry Birds. Cosplayers may go sooner. Maybe the graphic student can get more out of these or the previous suggestions? Difficult also what fits each other and to the rest of the portal. If necessary also colorize (blue). The 1st picture Vainglory is a commercial game (with release). You could also take a picture with several devices (home computers, consoles or gamepads) or create a collage. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:31, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Hello, I think the sixth picture is pretty good. Maybe you can put that into one of the banners that have already posted? / Pearli123 ( discussion ) 16:38, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

The whole picture with the blurred soldier? I thought more of a section. In a small format, the IMHO does not come into its own, especially with the long, narrow banners. Later I found the first picture, which IMHO is better. Chewbacca is for the first variant. You for the 2nd Is 1: 1. I also tend more to 1. I hope for more opinions, at least about the rough direction. Otherwise, you could also use a banner times as a test. Does not anyone else have any ideas, or can I run a graphics program or has time to look at commons? - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 15:22, 23 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

So I can not operate a graphics program, unfortunately (at least not more than simple color gradients / transparency etc). I could also imagine the first picture as another miniature in the collage. From the second post the last banner with one / two pictures of the linked possibly? / Pearli123 ( discussion ) 13:48, 24 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Click for big

I once compared both types on the portal and has to admit that the 2nd variant is in color and also better in the frame (despite frame). At least on wide monitors. The font should normally be centered, ie contract, but I do not know if that works because of the Pac-Man image. Ggf The font left-justified or centered and possibly larger / longer (narrow monitors have bad luck then). I have also inserted a new picture with the tablet. The soldier was too small. The narrower height I find better. The color could be made a little lighter or darker. Relatively dark, similar blue links are also in the text. Also it fits better, if in the article of the month pictures are. With narrower monitors, this would be very heavy on the right. Lara Croft or a retro picture I would find even better. Maybe Chewbacca2205 and others can make friends with the 2nd banner. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 17:38, 26 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Yes, it works too. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 9:49 pm, Oct. 26, 2016 (CEST)

Does anyone else speak against it? What about the pictures and the font, colors etc? - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:29, 27 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

Filing of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:43, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Category: Nintendo game console

Does this Kombikat Nintendo product + game console make sense? Half of them are also handhelds that are in the (redundant) parallel Kat. We have not synonymous with Sony and Microsoft. Will Nintendo recover an extra sausage? - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:55, 21 Oct. 2016 (CEST)

There is certainly a navigation list: template: Navigation bar Nintendo . The Kat is quite redundant. The artist formerly known as 04:31, 23. Okt. 2016 (CEST)

Sorry, I just see, handhelds are a sub cat from the consoles. Then it fits. And relieves the Kat game consoles. So maybe it makes sense. In addition, we have more Nintendo Kats. In addition, numerous interwikis. This will probably spread to other companies someday. There are more and more consoles. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 13:30, 31 Oct. 2016 (CET)

How should this Kat make sense? The Oberkat has 67 pages, there is no need for relief; especially since most consoles would then be listed bundled under 'N'. Readers are much more likely to use navileists than categories; if this cat has any use, then Wikipedians must name him .-- the artist formerly known as 05:17, 4 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Then make an LA from me. The sorting instead of N could be changed, however. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:28, 13 Nov. 2016 (CET)

WP: WikiProject Categories / Discussion / 2016 / November / 15 # Category: Nintendo Game Console - the artist formerly known as 06:16, 15 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Filing of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:43, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Article of the month

With me on November 1, still the article of the month of October (GTA) is displayed ... Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 08:13, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET)

A Nulledit helped. With you, too? - Prüm 08:16, 1. Nov. 2016 (CET)

Probably the bot was not through yet. It works now. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 09:24, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Archiving of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:42, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)

New article problems

Numerous [[: Nintendo Entertainment Planning is displayed before Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development. Probably lies on &. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:16, 3 Nov. 2016 (CET)

I already addressed . Best regards, Grueslayer 14:26, 3 Nov. 2016 (CET)
Archiving of this section was requested by: Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:42, 21 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Renaming request Category: Computer games magazine and others

Category: Computer games magazine , as well as Unterkat. Please note (not mine). It's also about game collections and series articles. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:47, 13 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Honestly, Category: Computer games collection seems quite arbitrary and useless therefore .-- the artist formerly known as 06:28, 15 Nov. 2016 (CET)

What do you mean by arbitrary. The lemma? Are also currently very few entries. You could also put it in the main article. Or a list. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 12:51, 16 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Were retained.
Archiving of this section was requested by: Kungfuman ( discussion ) 13:08, 23. Nov. 2016 (CET)

project page

I have adapted the project page to the new design of the main page and ask for feedback. VG Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:49, 21 Nov 2016 (CET)

I do not understand why a change is necessary at all. IMHO also a little pale, I found better before. The site is just a project page anyway. Who's calling them? Even from us. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 12:47, Nov. 23, 2016 (CET)

Portal and project pages should be in a similar style, as the portal page links to the project page in a prominent position and forms part of this project. For people who want to be active in the subject area, they are an important entry point into the collaboration alongside the portal page. Therefore it should be clear and up-to-date. For example, the large number of links that overwhelm and put off the beginner, the implementation of multi-column incompatibilities with some scaling and the inclusion of lists that are not really used, such as the separation requests, are problematical on the current page. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 21:08, Nov 27, 2016 (CET)

According to me. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 11:10, Nov. 28, 2016 (CET)


I have used the banner now. Was unanimously voted Variant 2? The advantage is, the images are, as with the portal transport and traffic, individually linked and can be easily replaced later if necessary. I had to upload the font as a picture because of the Pac-Man. For very narrow monitors, the banner is longer than the frame. Who can fix this? Maybe you should better omit the frame completely? But that does not work. Apparently, the page must have a minimum width, so probably have other portals. It's logical, you can not break in the middle of the picture. I have only 16: 9 or just mobile. The main thing at 4: 3 still looks (would have just go), otherwise you have to shorten the typeface even more. Other browsers also need to be checked. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:22, 31 Oct. 2016 (CET)

This banner messes up the entire appearance of the new portal. Sorry, but a) it does not match the color and dimensions of the rest and b) it looks quite unimaginative - not to say boring and amateurish - out. Somebody else has to do it. Did not even a graphic artist want to do something? Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 15:01, 31. Okt. 2016 (CET)

No, no graphic artist wanted to do something. I've tried to explain it twice, but obviously I'm not that clever with words. New attempt: If someone has an idea for a banner and can describe it as reading, what it should look like, so a detailed and elaborate concept, then I like to go to my friend and ask her, that implement. It does not do any good to tell a graphic designer to "make a banner". There is a lack of understanding for Wikipedia and understanding of our portal. Best regards, Grueslayer 10:01, 1. Nov. 2016 (CET)

Here is my suggestion: Click to enlarge. The details have not yet been worked out, it's just about the rough direction - away from these potthäßter block banners. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 11:07, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET) 


Yes it is clear. Why stupid? The majority (all 3 with me) were in favor, there were no votes against. I waited a long time. Now that I've done all the work, you come. Your suggestion with the 1 and 0 was rejected some time ago in the review, since it has nothing to do with games. This is practically just text and not a banner. I'm against it. Incidentally, I have decided to opt for a simpler version and neither Lara Croft nor retro nor flourish. Pictures are mandatory for me in a banner. The dimensional problems are due to your narrow constrained width. By the way, that gives you problems with all banners, including yours. And that we can not wait for the designer has also been discussed. If you have to deliver a completely finished concept, you can do it yourself. Ideas and picture suggestions were so plentiful. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:50, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET)

I can hardly believe it, but I think Knurri's design is beautiful. The point named by Kungfu, that is structurally not related to computer games, is correct. But purely aesthetically the banner meets my personal taste. Since it hooks here in every corner of the communication, I personally would probably not change anything again, but I hold myself out there eventually. Best regards, Grueslayer 16:01, 1. Nov. 2016 (CET)
You ask questions. Do not you see the difference? There is absolutely nothing wrong with your banner: Proportions deficient, colors deficient, technical execution deficient. Moreover, your banner does not match the environment in any way. It kills everything. Do not you have any feelings for shapes and colors? I deliberately chose a more abstract and open banner. Abstract, because otherwise quickly comes up a POV-Geschmäckle and you also copierschutzrechtlich on the safe side. Open edges because something else is too dominant and the eye would only bother. Why did not I participate in your vote? First of all, I initially thought of the proposals for a bad joke and secondly, I still write articles incidentally. @Grueslayer: I can not do anything with Waldorf cuddle pedagogy. If someone delivers a bungling, then I say that openly and directly. Best regards,Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 17:47, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET)

" I can not do anything with Waldorf-Kuschel-Pedagogy, if someone delivers a bungling, then I say that openly and directly. " - I do that in the RL. In an online community, that's counterproductive. You will not agree on anything here in life because you are so wonderfully open and direct. Reading tip: GIFT . Best regards, Grueslayer 21:38, 1. Nov. 2016 (CET)

Let's see what the other Wikipedians think about banner selection. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 22:05, 1 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Regardless of the banner question we should as soon as possible take the other portal pages: Wikipedia: WikiProjekt computer game and the related discussion page . These are also part of the portal (=> are considered in an informative discussion) and should therefore be in the style of portal: computer games . - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:06, Nov. 2, 2016 (CET)

I suggest we finish one thing first. Banner vote? Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 09:04, 3 Nov. 2016 (CET)

It was already voted: 3: 0 (even now 3: 2) for my design. A blue banner fits wonderfully, especially our project color. Proportions good, a narrow bar, relatively small pictures, neutral writing (everything is used by many other portals where I have addressed myself). The only thing that would not be neutral now, are the pictures and you can replace if necessary. But I think it's a good mix of different images and genres. POV is also available at AdTages. Copy protection problems are none. Maybe better 2 instead of 1 hardware image (on the edges) and RailSim away. Otherwise, your "abstract" picture here is totally inappropriate and, as I said, rejected by me and others. In addition, color too cool and bare. Practically only one font, no banner. Why are you constantly insulting me and the majority here? -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:11, 3 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Where did I offend you? I just wrote that your banner is potentially ugly and amateurish. Nobody likes to hear that, I understand that. But it is the sober judgment of a fact, not of your person. And where was my design agreed? Who else but you reject my design? I think you are fantasizing. That's why EOD here. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 15:23, 3 Nov. 2016 (CET)

And another cheeky insult! You do not even realize that. Since you have asked questions, I will answer. And if you read everything correctly here and in the review, you can easily see who is against your banner (eg Pearli123 and already in your description) and that are more for my suggestions. (Of course not a word). Actually, no one except you is right for your proposal. If you wanted to vote again theoretically, it would be in principle the core question, who wants pictures in the banner and who does not. But that was practically already discussed in detail and majority decided how to read here. Incidentally, the designer would certainly have included pictures and they are always a matter of taste). Instead of being ready to compromise and actually getting involved with my questions or even helping to optimize your portal page, you simply ignore everything unpleasant, reject everything else (even in the review, like the open points), offend, etc. By the way others (the "techies who chop everything") who want to help (eg) optimize the portal syntax. No wonder that no one dares to express themselves, to help, to vote or even to propose something. Cut yourself into your own flesh with it. that no one dares to express themselves, to help, to vote or even to propose something. Cut yourself into your own flesh with it. that no one dares to express themselves, to help, to vote or even to propose something. Cut yourself into your own flesh with it.

Well, we have a banner now. An insight is not to be expected anyway, we turn around in a circle, therefore gladly now EOD. I will immediately try to fix the technical problems. As I said, this basically affects all banners, because you can not break them in the middle, like the rest. As also said, and criticized by others, the current width / design anyway totally unfavorable and unusual; the mobile view catastrophic. Both hang together and is your "poor technical execution", not mine. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:11, 4 Nov. 2016 (CET)

@ Pearli123 : Can you confirm Kungfuman's statement? Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 16:02, 4 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Hello Knurrikowski, Kungfuman, Gru and so on,
At the moment I have a lot of privacy around me, one of the reasons why I'm more semi-active at the moment. Another reason is this atmosphere discussed here. At first, I wanted to stay out of the way as far as possible and only say what I think of the things (by the way, without ever having been "tuned"). It seems to me as if two different opinions should be hammered through with the hammer. And basically, I do not have the nerve (right now) to get involved here. So much for once, please just take it.

To the discussion with the banner I can only say, the "vote", as it is so beautifully titled, went to the banner of Kungfuman to one of the three banners he has created (thank you again for the effort) and the who was there before. And there you can say what you want, the better, than the old one. I have to agree with Kungfuman, few people took part in the selection, and I do not remember reading that Knurrikowski said anything against it. Well, since this is fortunately not set in stone, of course you can change a lot. As I have already mentioned, I am not a graphic artist, so I can only decide subjectively. It may be that Kungfuman's proposals are technically bad.
The banner of Knurri (I'll cut that off in the future, if it's ok) is of course something completely different than what other portals have or were initially introduced as suggestions. Still, it seems to be fashion to specialize in flat structures in logos and banners, it does not look bad, it's really just text, then the picture of the month / article of the month has to refer to illustrated articles.
In addition: @ Kungfuman : I have never decided against a banner by Knurri, at least I can not remember (and I have a pretty good memory). Can you bring a "proof" (sounds so hard, sorry)? Otherwise please just refrain from such mentions, if you are not sure. Thank you.
If I forgot something, then simply report again; usually read at least here.
Greetings / Pearli123 ( discussion ) 17:33, 4 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Unfortunately, these baseless claims by Kungfuman are the reason for the somewhat rough sound here. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. I do not like Kungfuman because he never reads my sums correctly (or understands that?) And then still pulls the leather and insinuations (eg I would have insulted him) abound in the round. At some point, even the most peaceful can no longer live in peace if you do not let him. Who wants to move something here, inevitably collides with Kungfuman. My way of dealing with it is to ignore it as far as possible (EOD). Unfortunately this is not possible in the case of the banner. His suggestion is artistically as well as technically sub-optimal, to put it in a friendly way. Apart from that, it does not need a photo banner of any kind, since we had agreed on the article of the month on photos to be displayed. Best regards,Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 18:14, 4 Nov. 2016 (CET)

I can help you on the jumps again. Quotation of Pearli in the review: Any reference to video games should already be there, because the suggestion of Knurrikowski in itself would be so rather for computer science, right?So apparently no approval. Next to us both Grueslayer sees no relation to the topic and does not vote for it either. And the rough sound is started only by Knurrikowski. I only defend myself, because there is constant demand, because he obviously does not read everything in its entirety. He did not notice, for example, that the graphic artist is one of you and does not take action. Even worse are his solo efforts, edit-wars, baseless VM, stalking and of course the extremely sincere tone. And as a thank you, that I was the only one who tried for a long time and with various suggestions to meet as many as possible.

Again to my banner. This "suspicious" design is used by about half of Wikipedia. Eg the whole geography portals. A simple rectangle and 4 pictures. Do not you have any feelings for shapes and colors?There are no forms in it. And blue fits very well (even within the pictures) and is our project color. So he insults practically the taste of half Wikipediamitarbeiter and many readers. Practically all have pictures, why not? His giant font kills the portal, not my simple banner. And more artistic and creative and matching the portal are certainly more of my suggestions. Therefore, the majority was in favor of it. Sure, that does not suit him. He did not even vote. His excuses are really funny. Nobody says that I am a professional. Chewbacca was at least enthusiastic. And again, many articles of the month have no pictures or very simple logos. And I was aware of the 2nd, decided simpler variant and always asked for compromise and even on Retro etc waived. Can you read everything. By the way, an impudence to delete the old banner completely and so quickly. No matter who it was. Would be interesting for historical purposes. And if Knurrikowski goes ahead, I'll act like him and put VM. That's enough here slowly. He does not insult, nobody, no. After all, he admits that he "dislikes me" and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - Can you read everything. By the way, an impudence to delete the old banner completely and so quickly. No matter who it was. Would be interesting for historical purposes. And if Knurrikowski goes ahead, I'll act like him and put VM. That's enough here slowly. He does not insult, nobody, no. After all, he admits that he "dislikes me" and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - Can you read everything. By the way, an impudence to delete the old banner completely and so quickly. No matter who it was. Would be interesting for historical purposes. And if Knurrikowski goes ahead, I'll act like him and put VM. That's enough here slowly. He does not insult, nobody, no. After all, he admits that he "dislikes me" and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - Would be interesting for historical purposes. And if Knurrikowski goes ahead, I'll act like him and put VM. That's enough here slowly. He does not insult, nobody, no. After all, he admits that he "dislikes me" and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - Would be interesting for historical purposes. And if Knurrikowski goes ahead, I'll act like him and put VM. That's enough here slowly. He does not insult, nobody, no. After all, he admits that he "dislikes me" and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. - and that he or she has a rough tone here. His block log already says everything. Other questions from him, the answer of which was obvious and already answered I will not answer anymore. Apparently he just wants to annoy me. It's also a waste of time. He should finally read correctly and read everything and accept the majorities. EOD. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 18:50, 6 Nov. 2016 (CET)

What exactly does my block log say? I can not find anything in it. Shaking his head, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 19:28, Nov. 6, 2016 (CET)

@ Kungfuman: That's right, I was wrong. Anyway, if I see Knurri's banner like that, it does not look too bad, of course, there is still no reference to it, nothing has changed. Greetings / Pearli123 ( discussion ) 20:37, 6 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Much too much fuss over a stupid header. I prefer that of Knurri also spontaneously, relation is me and probably the reader well. Rather still I would prefer something like in the other portal, thus an HTML box or so, which scales also on the Smartphone. The current portal looks like this on my old iphone: http://i.imgur.com/KBvhz6W.jpg Maybe a file will do better. And in general to the portal: Too much prose, too many columns, links are in places too close together (in a one-liners you can quickly be mistyped ) .-- the artist formerly known as 03:28, 11 Nov. 2016 (CET)

A (sophisticated) banner on a smartphone in portrait format does not get any better. Everything is already scaled and the pictures are slipping, but of course there are limits. The problem is however on all web pages. A single wide image as a banner, such as Knurrikowski's banner can not be scaled and is either probably not displayed or completely wrong and of course overlaps the frame, etc. If you want to see wide pictures, etc. on mobile phone, you can indeed rotate in landscape mode or take the default instead of the mobile view. Would have preferred to see below. The rest you can not read, as in the middle of the words umwandrochen. And if there is too much fuss then you can also leave it. Even 3: 3 would not be a majority. For the rest, please contact Knurrikowski. Columns are not too much (normal 2). Contentwise, it was already criticized otherwise. Of course, I miss important articles (aka milestones), etc. The portal should be as informative as possible. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:13, 13 Nov. 2016 (CET)

I checked it in the mobile preview grad, a picture without a fixed width is fitted.
Just because of the breaks, two columns may be too much. However, this can not be estimated without extensive data on visitors to the portal. The artist formerly known as 05:55, 14 Nov. 2016 (CET)

Does not every picture have a fixed width, or do you mean the fixed width of the page? But even if a picture is scaled, so is the question of what it looks or acts. Since you could just take a font right away. You will not recognize the 0 and 1. Exact surveys will not exist. But I think that the minority is surfing mobile and in portrait format on small devices. And even if, the majority probably would not care if and how a banner looks on a single portal page. So we should concentrate on a normal monitor (or landscape format). And I stick with it, pictures belong to it, as with almost all other portals. Especially since we do not have any else. And I think a single column is not good. That looks so miserable on the other devices and has no portal. These are just the disadvantages of HTML. We also can not make sure everything looks the same on every browser and every version. -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 12:49, 16 Nov. 2016 (CET)

I use my image syntax without specifying the width.
The Foundation has not put a pile of gravel in the mobile WP for nothing, because it will be something to it, if half the Internet opens mobile pages. But well, as long as you can not navigate properly on the portal, it will remain the way you accept it.
Maybe there are CSS classes that are hidden in the mobile skin, so you could hide the second column for mobile phones. I just see, there's at least the class "metadata" , which could be misused for it.
Probably there are other approaches for it, the mobile main page gets it somehow baked to put the second column under the first. That seems to be an extra sausage.
- the artist formerly known as 20:51, 29 Nov. 2016 (CET)

The design of the mobile homepage looks completely different. There are missing all boxes and Navileisten and even the ball logo is missing. Why? Maybe the main page will additionally be created especially mobile again. Mobile surfing is a torment, at least 5 inches to maybe 7. Portrait and landscape. Since you want to look up mostly only brief information. Scroll pictures, watch videos or similar. of course it works better. Navigation is basically mobile bad. Either you draw larger or take a pen or the little finger. Mobile means also tablet or other devices. And that's usually better. But that's not all that has to do with the banner. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:55, 1 Dec. 2016 (CET)

portal nomination

Why was the portal so suddenly and secretly nominated? That the portal is not informative, but bare and minimalist, but sees a blind man and has already been criticized both in the review of others, as well as here by me. And I also addressed the poor mobile view several times. Of course, blame is being shifted to others. Now we get the receipt for and against, just because of the look. By the way, no one criticizes the banner. And before that, the portal was even better. Now, at least officially, we all know from the whole community that it's so nothing. Should you withdraw IMHO and think about how to get it more informative. So selected items must probably pure. People just want a "POV selection". And best of all professionals who master the design and HTML. You could have given the review, if you do not accept advice anyway. Pity, of course, for all the work. Best of all, completely new from scratch. It would be best to make several suggestions, or be based on other portals. The problem is, of course, that even simple polls do not succeed here. Or you can leave it that way if everyone here likes it. Does not every portal have to have an award? - Does not every portal have to have an award? - Does not every portal have to have an award? -Kungfuman ( discussion ) 14:38, 7 Dec. 2016 (CET)

It does not hurt anything. Here is the history, as far as I have recorded:

WD: WikiProject Computer Games / Archive / 2016/3 # Revision of the portal page
WD: WikiProject Computer Game / Archive / 2016/3 # redesign
WD: WikiProject Computer Games / Archives / 2016/3 # Banner, greeting, information content, continuous texts
WD: WikiProject Computer Game / Archive / 2016/3 # portal design
WD: WikiProject Computer Game / Archive / 2016/3 # Review 12.09. - 21.11.2016
WD: WikiProject Computer Game / Archive / 2016/3 # Random Article
WD: WikiProject Computer Games / Archive / 2016/4 # Banner Suggestions Part 1a ff.
WD: WikiProject Computer Games / Archive / 2016/4 # Banner Suggestions Pictures Part 3
WP: KALP # Portal: Computer Games

- the artist formerly known as 19:13, 7 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Yes, I know that. But nothing about a sudden nomination. In particular not before fixing all problems. It was probably planned early. And now it's kinda rushing. But how should a portal without information be informative? One has almost deleted all information. Originally there should not be any links in it and no banner. Then at least one would have had more criticism. And now even the lemma computer game is criticized. In video games, the other faction bothers. It must be both portal: computer and video games. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:33, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

"Portal: Computer and Video Games" That's a really good idea of ​​you. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 22:41, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

If anything, then "computer / video games". These are practically synonyms. Therefore prefer either or .-- the artist formerly known as 15:18, 10 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Unfortunately it is false. Computer game - as well as console game - is a sub-concept of video game (see https://www.openthesaurus.de/synonyme/Videospiel#subSynset24550 ). In other words, video game is lt. Openthesaurus the generic term. Logically, it would have to be called Portal: Videogames. In linguistic usage, however, one very often uses the combo "computer and video games" (see Google search "computer and video games"). In that sense, I see no problem, quite the opposite. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 16:31, 10 Dec. 2016 (CET)

I know this combo designation, but keep it for slang, because video games are just not just console games, as you just slog. Then stop "Videogames" .-- the artist formerly known as 22:00, 10 Dec. 2016 (CET)

@ Knurrikowski: OpenThesaurus is a free German dictionary for synonyms in which everyone can join. So completely irrelevant, what is there. As sources Wiktionary and Wikipedia are given. And that it is the generic term, you obviously have misunderstood or twisted. Sub-terms are browser game next to console game. So everything mixed up. And the Duden is also no lattice for Ludology and reflected at most in each case in the current edition of the current vernacular. By the way Personal Computer <> IBM PC. CS and video game are synonyms and are based on the historical development (of the hardware). Even in the Duden is more often used "computer game" and although less played on the PC. Further in the portal nomination.Kungfuman ( discussion ) 17:10, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

But Duden and DWDS see it the same way - the artist formerly known as 23:24, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Tell me you are the other group. - the artist formerly known as 15:18, 10 Dec. 2016 (CET)

I play on different platforms, including consoles. It has nothing to do with it. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 17:10, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Strictly speaking, consoles are also computers, so "computer games" also fits, even if I prefer "video games". Storm Chaser ( discussion ) 20:22, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)
I do not mean that. You're the only one who wrote something against "video games" on the portal nomination. - the artist formerly known as 23:24, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Candidature from 4 December 2016 to 14 December 2016

After a long work, I now put this portal to the candidature. My thanks go to all users who participated in the fundamental revision of the site, in particular Knurrikowski and Kungfuman and Stegosaurus Rex , who supported us in the review. Best regards Chewbacca2205( D ) 20:45, 4 Dec. 2016 (CET)

[QS icon orange empty.svg]  no distinction In the mobile view I have two thin columns, which have a maximum of seven characters per line, which is absolutely unacceptable .-- JTCEPB ( discussion ) 20:54, 4 Dec. 2016 (CET) [Go Rockets]

My first impression: It has become very "simple", but that does not necessarily have to be bad - a matter of taste. However, I am skeptical of the categories linked in the middle of the text. I suspect that most "average readers" are not very familiar with the category system and might be scared when they land on those pages. - HilberTraum ( d ,  m ) 11:53, 5 Dec. 2016 (CET)
I have now looked at the new portal design a bit accurate and unfortunately, unfortunately, come to a  [QS icon orange empty.svg]  no award . From the look and the web design actually pretty to look at, but in terms of content and the user interface, unfortunately much worse than before. Example: I click on the link "discussion page" and suddenly have a completely different user guidance with tabs, because I come to the portal and not back, but z. B. on "urgent" and yet back ?? Totally confusing. The main page is not "informative" in its brevity. I saw through in five minutes and see as a reader no reason to stop by here again. The only "Current" is the article of the month, but nothing that would encourage a reader to pamphlet. On the portal: Mathematics(not that I want to portray that as particularly great, but since I know myself well) there are z. For example, pages on which the award-winning articles with image and teaser are briefly presented. Besides, there is not even a half-sentence on the whole page that invites a reader to collaborate . I would consider that very important in times of declining employee numbers. I click on "WikiProjekt Computerspiel" and see: Aha, so there are three employees. Is that a lot or a little? Of course that is not enough, but how should that be clear to a reader? Sorry, if I sound a bit indignant, but I find the work area computer games here is very important to me. Greetings - HilberTraum ( d ,  m) 23:06, 5 Dec. 2016 (CET)

I have restored the tab navigation. A gallery of excellent articles is a good idea that I can create. I put some invitations on the project page, where would you put more? VG Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 21:29, 10 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Thanks, you can find your way around the riders much better. (Trivia: The color highlighting of the active rider does not work properly.) The invitations are now back to the standard of other portals, should actually be enough, thank you for that. The introduction to WP: WikiProjekt Computerspiel sounds a bit "daunting" to mMn, but you have to point out the guidelines. Greetings - HilberTraum ( d ,  m ) 10:06, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

The color problem I have fixed and made the reference to the guidelines differently. VG Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:29, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

@ HilberTraum : I have created a gallery of excellent articles and linked in the portal. Should I do that in the form for the worth reading? - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:52, 13 Dec, 2016 (CET)

Wow, that has become super nice, thank you for the work! I mean, I think that would be great for the readable, but just do not stress;) Also, not because of the candidacy, my vote above is mainly due to the "empty content" of the portal page and the direct link to the categories that are my personal Opinion is neither informative for readers nor for employees. Greetings - HilberTraum ( d ,  m ) 21:18, 13 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Thank you. Which content should I supplement? Other portals, such as Lusatia , Dresden and Alaska are similarly short. For longer portals, it is often criticized that these pages are too comprehensive and there is no focus on the essentials. I know the category links are unusual, but I found the idea interesting because it allows the reader to quickly navigate through the entire inventory of the project. I can also remove them. VG Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 21:43, 13 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Phew, these are really three excellent portals? In fact, I have to admit that I have never followed a nomination for a portal. That's why I really did not think that the claims for it are sooo low. Do we really want to have such a wave of portals today? I'm going to sleep slowly and think about it tomorrow. - HilberTraum ( d ,  m ) 22:12, 13 Dec. 2016 (CET)

[QS icon violet waiting.svg]  Waiting The problem with the view in the mobile view should be solved .-- Chris XC3000 ( discussion ) 14:07, 6 Dec. 2016 (CET)

@ Knurrikowski : Can you take care of the mobile view? - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:55, 6 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Unfortunately not. @ Nenntmichruhigip : has done all the HTML stuff. Best regards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 21:15, 6 Dec. 2016 (CET)

In the case of the two column divs (which can be min-width:20em;supplemented with float: left and float: right), for example . Probably lost somewhere in my rum changes, that was just one of the reasons for my changes to it) The exact value may choose one of those who have more to do with the portal. - call me quiet ip ( discussion ) 11:44, 7 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Thank you. However, the right column remains to the right when the page size is increased (because of float: right). Do you see a way to break the rigid legal justification if the space is enough for only one column? - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 19:47, 7 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Try to<div style="border:1px #000000 solid; box-sizing:border-box; margin:0 0 10px; padding:5px 5px 3px; background:#FFFFFF; clear:left; float:left; width:49%;"> <h2 style="margin:0 0 9px; border-bottom:1px solid #000000; font-size:1.4em; font-weight:600; text-align:center;">{{{TITEL}}}</h2> {{{INHALT}}} </div> replace ma with "left" if necessary with "right" .-- JTCEPB ( discussion ) 20:50, 7 Dec. 2016 (CET)  [Go Rockets]

The problem still remains. - Chewbacca2205 ( D ) 20:07, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

True, even with the portal: American football is the double-column meanwhile also in the mobile view. That used to be different. Somebody probably messed around in the software ... - JTCEPB ( discussion ) 20:19, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)  [Go Rockets]

Yes, the mobile view is not optimal yet. If you could use CSS classes or JavaScript, it would be easy to fix the problem (eg with Mediaquery), but I can not think of a solution for that at the moment. Storm Chaser ( discussion ) 20:45, 11 Dec. 2016 (CET)

I find the lemma unhappy. By computer games I understand games that are played on the PC. Should console, slot machine and smartphone games also find their place in this portal, video games would be the more appropriate lemma. Waiting Holstenbär ( discussion) 08:56, 8 Dec. 2016 (CET)

We had agreed a long time ago to summarize everything under the lemma computer games (see also the Kats, Klemmlemmata etc). In video games just computer games are not included. There are also audio games, LCD games, etc. But the lemma should not fail. The other criticism (about content and desolate mobile view) is already justified and was also addressed in the review and in the project. Why was nominated suddenly, without announcement and without the problem solving is beyond me. Unfortunately, there were people who have removed all information about alleged POVs. With effort we have at least wiki links and a banner. - Kungfuman ( discussion ) 16:45, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

Who is we"? One has agreed on the scientific literature on something and bewarmed beautifully in his own POV sauce. The old portal troffed only from POV (keyword milestones) and Augenkrebserzeugendem layout. It was in a 5-column arrangement in tiny little font any links on any games purely clenched, without that you could understand their selection. The new portal was an attempt to put an end to the old abuses. Nobody said it was perfect - but it's a big improvement. Contentwise, nothing is wrong and layout-technical everything works - except for the funny banner - much more balanced, so that you even start reading. The new portal was in the review forever - the response was rather modest. Therefore, probably the nomination, so that even uninvolved people finally announce their opinion, which in turn can be used for improvement. The points addressed by Hilbertraum with the navigation inherited from the old page and change content for example. Probably it will now be followed by a miserable long sermon from user Kungfuman, which I will not answer, because everything has already been said. Best regards, because everything has already been said. Best regards, because everything has already been said. Best regards,Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 18:39, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

I push my sermon before  [zwinker]  my opinion, the NPOV bid refers only to articles, but z. Eg not on portals (or even not on the WP: main page , for example ). On the rule page WP: NPOV is accordingly only of articles the speech. Or to put it another way: on portal pages, readers expect POV or, better said, an editorial selection. So it is then on the page WP: Portals, among other things: A portal is not a collection page for all articles on the subject, but should provide a well-structured overview.One can not find this portal concept good, but that is no reason to want to make an example of a single portal. In the too small font and the column layout of the old portal I agree with you. - HilberTraum ( d ,  m ) 19:28, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

The problem with a selection is that everyone would like to have a different one. This then leads to frustration and quarrels among several committed employees. Therefore common sense dictates that such a selection should adhere to innocuous criteria in order to exclude from the outset frustration, even in the future. What is better than NPOV? One can take a well-known standard work of Ludology and transfer there mentioned "milestones" (but I can not imagine that scientists use such vague terms at all). But that's exactly what you never did. It was always selected according to personal taste. And so a portal quickly degenerates into a "private blog". I do not think that this is a sustainable concept for something halfway "official" like a portal - unless you also identify it as a fan playground. Even as a supplement: if the inexperienced readers do not get along with the category system in your opinion, then you should not prefer to revise this system? The last word about the portal is not spoken yet. I certainly do not want a botch anymore - and the old portal was Murks (please do not take it personally). Best regards,Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 20:06, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

If you preventively remove everything that could possibly cause frustration and quarrels, then Wikipedia would probably have exactly zero pages ;-) Seriously: At least since I'm here, I have noticed no major dispute over the contents of the portal page. Yes, if the category system was to be revised more reader-friendly, you could perhaps think about a direct link - it would depend on the type of revision. But if only category links occur, it would still contradict the rule for portals, which I quoted above. A category is exactly what is undesirable: a linking of all articles, but no structured overview. - Hilbert dream ( d , m ) 20:52, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)

You have not noticed a major dispute? Will you ignore me, right? ; o) What you want is based on good nature and horse trading. The result will be at best a compromise, in the worst case a dispute. Why would you want that? Add to that the mediocre quality of many video game products that were previously linked. The few presentable articles (worth reading and excellent) are all linked in the new portal. So I really can not understand your concerns about less article links. Bestregards, Knurrikowski ( discussion ) 21:07, 9 Dec. 2016 (CET)



FIG. 4.

Pinball Parts Online.


Find the parts you need for your Pinball Game at Bay Area Amusements!

Pinball games - ClassicGame.com


Pinball games. Play the best free online Pinball Games. Games include Pinboladia, Pinball King, Extreme Pinball, 7up pinball, Western Pepsi Pinball and many more Free Online Pinball Games.

Feel-Good results for pinball


Fast Company Magazine

Inside the race to (finally) bring pinball into the internet era


Ars Technica

Fixing the past: The art of collecting pinballmachines


Washington Post

Competitive pinball is having a revival. This time around, women want their turn.





Seattle Times

Female pinball wizards compete — seriously and supportively — at the monthly Babes in Pinland tournament


Yahoo News

This Shallow Bowl Is the Ideal Vessel for Every Food I Eat


Yahoo News

Tonight's The Night To Try The Seated Wheelbarrow Sex Position


MSN News

Summertime Fun: For The Love Of Museums

Pinball Games - Free Web Arcade - Free Online Games


Starsky & Hutch Pinball Clean up the mean streets of Bay City! Tim Ball Pinball with a tennis theme! Xmas Pinball Xmas-themed pinball!

Pinball - Wikipedia


Pinball is a type of arcade game, in which points are scored by a player manipulating one or more metallic balls on a play field inside a glass-covered cabinet called a pinball machine.

Pinball - Image Results


More Pinball images

Classic Pinball Online - Play Free Now


This pinball online game is a cool replica of an early style pinball machine. Now you can play classic pinball free anytime! To begin, click the Small, Medium, or Large link or PLAY GAME button or HTML5/Mobile link under the picture at left.

Play Free Pinball Games ::


Play Pinball Games @
FreeGames.com. We have over 100,000 games. Enter & play now!

 Pinball videos
The Best Free Online Pinball Games -


Disney has made several good free pinball games to promote their films. The Rat'N'Roll table is based on the 2007 animated film "Ratatouille." With fun animations and sound effects, nice ball action, solid flippers, and some neat ramps to shoot for, Rat'N'Roll is a pretty good time that reminds you of the popular movie it's based on.

Get Pinball Star - Microsoft Store


Download this game from Microsoft Store for Windows 10, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 Mobile, Windows Phone 8.1, Windows Phone 8. See screenshots, read the latest customer reviews, and compare ratings for Pinball Star.

Pin Ball Games


Welcome to Pin Ball Games! Have fun playing some of the best online games ever created and remember to check back often because we are always adding new and even better games.

Pepsi Pinball - Free Web Arcade


Pepsi Pinball is a wild west themed pinball machine. Shoot for the saloon to take a break, and collect bonus points by hitting Pepsi cans.

Pinball Life


The 2019 Chicago Pinball Expo is coming up in just a couple of months, so that means the Pinball Life annual open house is also right around the co


 related to: pinball

Buy Trailer Hitch Balls | Orders Over $50 Ship Free


zoro.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month

Pinball | Pinball |


asolytics.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month

We are creating a vision for your favorite apps. Analyze now!

Accurate Data · Competitive Intelligence · Full Version

Pinball Parts Online!


Find the parts you need for your Pinball Game at Bay Area Amusements!

Also Try

pinball machines for sale

pinball games online free

pinball wizard

pinball online

pinball games

pinball download free

pinball machine

space cadet pinball


Pepsi Pinball - Free Web Arcade


Pepsi Pinball is a wild west themed pinball machine. Shoot for the saloon to take a break, and collect bonus points by hitting Pepsi cans.

Glossary of pinball terms - Wikipedia


A. Add-a-ball. Allows the player to add additional balls by achieving a specific task e.g. during an active multiball.A feature especially popular on the latest generations of Stern machines.

Marco Specialties Pinball Parts


Everything Pinball™ for the pinball enthusiast. Vast selection of game-matched pinball parts, electronics, supplies, and more.


 related to: pinball

Pinball Parts Online!


Find the parts you need for your Pinball Game at Bay Area Amusements!

Best Offers on Stern Pinball | BEST-PRICE: Find Amazing Deals

www.best-price.com/Stern Pinball/Best-Offers

best-price.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month

Compare Stern Pinball here - Visit
BEST-PRICE.com to get Huge Savings today!




Website created by: "LA CHOFIS" © Copyrighted. All rights reserved. 2016-2019.  ​®Pinball.

FIG. 2.

FIG. 1.


politica tierra terraplanismo iru nasa sol oliver einstein newton