Welcome to the Borg


Can you think for yourself, or do you like to be told what to believe

A (short) collection of ‘borg’ examples





… and the ‘Coup Degrasse’



3 Minutes that PROVE All Media is Controlled by ONE Power !

It’s ok you can admit it, you have bought an item or two or ten for yourself repeating channels news presenter



  1. Mindless Media: News anchors from over a dozen US networks all reading the same script.















Was Foucault’s Gyroscope Claim a Croc of Merde?


It’s sad to realise how few people are aware of this apparent monumental happening in human history.

I am of course referring to the experiment, carried out by Leon Foucault in 1852, where he neatly and undeniably proved the Earth to be a spinning globe. Most people have heard of Foucault’s Pendulum experiment, but few that I have interacted with have ever heard any mention of his Gyroscope follies.

How is it, that we have countless examples of Foucault’s fraudulent pendulum in key places of learning and influence, yet not a single gyroscope display adorns the Establishment halls that I’m aware of. Surely, if the humble gyroscope could provide a convenient and affordable demonstration of one of the most hotly debated subjects on the plane(t), then we should see them in every museum, library, university, school and town hall. But no…

We are given (last paragraph) summaries of this paradigm shattering experiment, admitting it’s cleaner and tidier, but we’re told to ignore it as it doesn’t have much bang for it’s buck compared to a swinging plumb bob.


Telegraph gyroscope foucault 2 Screenshot from 2016-01-10 14:16:42.png

Telegraph gyroscope foucault Screenshot from 2016-01-10 14_16_00.png

So we are left to wonder what exactly this experiment was all about and how was it conducted. This is where things start to get very murky. Ok they didn’t have YouTube and iPhones to record and communicate the event in those days. However, one would have thought, for exactly this reason, they would have gathered meticulous, vast and varied data and diagrams of all aspects of this so-called revelation.

Sadly, I’ve not had much luck in uncovering the details of this experiment. Not even enough to repeat it for myself, test it, measure it, recreate it to any degree of known accuracy. On this one, the “Scientific Method” seems to be a bit lacking.

I’d like to know every detail about this ground breaking experiment, weights, measures, friction, torsion, materials, time, speeds, RPM, MPH – You name it. All the same demands that are made on my experiment should have been made on this experiment from over 150 years ago which is still postulated as undeniable proof by the mainstream media (at least) and many of the Borg ™ on twitter and YouTube

I have read that Foucault’s original gyroscope was hung by a wire, ran for 10 minutes via a cog and crank mechanism, rotated at 2000 rpm and was measured by the aid of a telescope and nano-degrees. Is any of this true, I have no idea. An experiment of this magnitude should be well documented, but isn’t……so……

I thought this would be an excellent experiment to recreate with modern high precision technology and electric motors. So I did…

Can a gyroscope tell if Earth is a spinning ball?

Here’s is a great follow-up on Foucault’s Gyroscope experiment by Rob Durham, along with conclusive proof from an aviation gyrocompass that the Earth is not moving



And finally…watch my latest experiment proving the bearing in the gimbal setup on my gyroscope is more than capable of registering the supposed turn of the Earth


Impossible Moon Phases

The question is: How do we see a nearly full moon during the day, or a crescent moon during the night.

Here’s the problem

kids book better shot of moon during the day Screenshot from 2016-12-11 20:54:12.png

This is what we are told is happening


I have seen many attempted explanations to this simple question. None seems to adequately tackle the fact that we see these moon phases, gibbous during the day, or crescent moons during the night, all the time.

These are some of the visual attempts to defend the crumbling heliocentric spinning ball model:



None of which seem to explain the day / night aspect of this problem, ie, when a crescent moon is showing, you should be on the daylight side (facing the sun) When the moon is nearly fully illuminated, then we should be on the dark side of earth (away from the sun).

This is probably the best and most convincing explanation, but bare in mind my photo (below) was taken at 3.30pm


More than half moon visible at 3pm 20-11-2015 compared to the explanation Screenshot from 2015-11-20 15:37:06.png


This should not be visible at night, but we all know it is.


These are pictures myself and friends have taken:


Full moon during the day from twitter hegerty Screenshot from 2015-12-02 12_10_02.png

Sofia (Bulgaria)

Sofia nearly full moon in daytime  8am setting in the west Screenshot from 2016-11-22 18:25:18.png

UKdaytime nearly full moon twitter photo 330pm Screenshot from 2016-11-22 18:22:44.png


More than half moon visible in day 2 22-11-2015IMG_2646.JPG

Here’s how they try to explain it in mainstream heliocentric ‘science’ [Note how a simple diagram of the configuration is not offered, I wonder why]

The comments, as always, have the last laugh…

Four keys to understanding moon phases

So I’m asking for a simple, three circle diagram, to explain how these impossible phases are possible on the spinning ball model

Should be easy….

Find me on Twitter @SwearyG

Is Foucault’s Fraudulent Pendulum a Religious Tool?



Léon Foucault (1819-1868), after having observed the working of a lathe, reasoned that a pendulum might operate in a similar manner to show rotation between the earth and the inertial field, and thus, in his view, demonstrate the ro¬tation of the earth. He built a small apparatus in a basement in Paris to test this idea and pronounced his ‘successes’ at 2 am on Jan 8, 1851.

Following this he was invited to set up his wonder of wonders at the Paris Observatory which led to an invitation from none other than Napoleon III to build a very large exhibit in the Pantheon in Paris. Hanging from a dome 220 feet above, a huge bob swung across a 20-foot diameter ring containing wet sand, leaving a grove as it passed through. As it swung in time, it continued to cut out new ridges until it formed a curve of cuts on the ground. Truly it looked as if it was accomplishing something very specific, and aided by the claims of Foucault that this was indeed a demonstration of the earth’s rotation, the ability of this display to convince even the most sceptical was instantaneous.

Like a demon on horseback, news of Foucault’s pendulum – and its success in supposedly showing the earth moves – spread far and wide. As the devil would have it, the greater heights of cathedral roofs were deemed most suitable for hanging the wire and ball of the pendulum, so operations were set up in churches in Reims, Amiens, St Jaques, Marseille, San Petrona, Sint Bavokerk in Haarlem, St. Peter and St. Paul’s Church Kraków, and Saint Isaac’s Cathedral, Saint Petersburg, for example.

Soon all sizes of pendulums began operations throughout Europe and beyond. So effective was the Foucault hoax that they placed them in many key locat¬ions to ensure most students in the world from then on would see for themselves the earth rotating. Wikipedia records the following places that exhibit working Foucault pendulums: Austria (1), Belarus (1), Belgium (4), Bulgaria (1), Czech Republic (3), Demark (3), Finland (4), France (3), Germany (16), Hungry (1), Iceland (1), Italy (7), Lithuania (1), Luxembourg (1), Moldova (1), Netherlands (2), Norway (3), Poland (6), Portugal (2), Romania (3), Russia (7), Serbia (1), Spain (9), Sweden (5), Switzerland (4), South Africa (5), United Kingdom (11), Tunisia (1), India (6), Iran (2), Israel (4), Japan (6), Pakistan (1), Thailand (1), Turkey (2), Canada (14), USA, (147), Central and South America (7), Australia (7), New Zealand (1) and Antarctica (1), over 300 in all.

[Ed. Interesting to note that France only has 3. The originating country of the Foucault Pendulum ]

That is how important this propaganda exercise is held by modern man. Indeed in September 2013 Google put up as a first search page logo a picture of a Foucault pendulum.

In a recent book on Léon Foucault and his pendulum, the author Amir Aczel records that in 1902 the Academy of Sciences of France commemorated that first demonstration of the earth’s rotation by re-enacting the display at the Panthéon in Paris, presided over by Camille Flammarion and Alphonse Berget, before a crowd of over 2000 people. Aczel then illustrates the part the Foucault pendulum has played in the heliocentric indoctrination in both Church and State over the past five centuries.

“The most magnificent lesson in popular astronomy ever given to the public was surely the memorable experiment conducted at this very place almost half a century ago by Léon Foucault. It was a practical, evident and majestic demonstration of the movement of rotation of our globe and a grammatical affirmation of the title planet, or ‘wandering star’ to the world on which we live… The image of Galileo just passed before our eyes. The demonstration of the earth’s movement has changed philosophy as a whole…

“It is the greatest moral and ethical revolution in the history of man. Foucault’s great triumph is a triumph of the human mind. It is a double victory of knowledge against ignorance.

“Foucault’s definitive proof of the rotation of the earth helped vindicate Galileo, Copernicus and Giordano Bruno. After Foucault successfully demonstration of the earth’s rotation Church scholars themselves embraced the heliocentric Copernican view of the world and openly wrote about Foucault’s proof. In 1911, the Jesuit priest J.G. Hagen wrote a major study called ‘The Rotation of the Earth: The Earth’s Mechanical Proofs Ancient and New.’” (Amir D. Aczel: Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the Triumph of Science, Washington Press, 2003, p.234 and p.238.)

Rotating stars or rotating earth?

We see then that Foucault’s pendulum has long been portrayed as the instrument that supposedly demonstrates it is a rotating earth that causes the above appearance and not the rotation of the stars around the earth. Here are a couple more quotes to show how this assertion is held throughout both Church and State.

“Ever since the time of Copernicus it had been taken for granted that the Earth is rotating on its axis. Nevertheless no one had actually demonstrated the fact. It seemed stationary, and no effect had been observed (other than the apparent spin of the sky) that could be attributed to the rotation. In 1851, however Jean Foucault suspended a large iron ball, about 2 feet in diameter and weighing 62 pounds, from a steel wire more than 200 feet long…The swinging pendulum would then remain in the same plane, but the earth, as it rotated, would change its orientation. If the pendulum had been at the North Pole, it would do a complete circle in 24 hours. At the latitude of Paris, the change would have taken 51 hours and 47 minutes. Thus the spectators were actually watching the Earth rotate under the pendulum.” (I. Asimov, Science and Discovery, Grafton Books, 1990, p.323.)

“Léon Foucault in Paris demonstrates the rotation of the Earth by means of a 200 foot pendulum.” (Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter, p.391.)

pendulum in church musee des arts et metiers Paris with gyroscope in the background Screenshot from 2016-11-27 17:17:33.png

Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation

So much for the propaganda. Now study the truth of it.

The following comes from the 20-year investigation of the Foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf, completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far. We thank him for permission to use his work in our synthesis. Mr Elmendorf’s begins with the following:

“The Foucault pendulum is one of the best-known experiments in the history of science. It created a sensation in its first public showing in Paris in 1851, and has fascinated scientists and laymen ever since.

“This article discusses the history, construction, operation, theory and meaning of the Foucault pendulum, presenting facts about it which are not generally known or understood by the millions of visitors who view these fascinating displays in science museums, schools, planetariums, observatories and other public buildings all around the world every year.

“My findings about the Foucault pendulum may very well astonish you…The surprising truth is that all Foucault pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s [supposed] rotation.

“The only kind of Foucault pendulum which would not be a fake would be one that was free-swinging, operated properly, and either had no explanations, plaques or literature associated with it, or had such which plainly acknowledged that it cannot determine absolute rotation.

“I know of no such Foucault pendulum anywhere.

“The Foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such. 

It’s a Religion

ball earth hands religion Screenshot from 2016-11-27 17:19:16.png

“But the Foucault pendulum is more than a hoax. It is actually a religious propaganda tool. Foucault pendulum displays have something very serious and important to prove.” (R.G. Elmendorf: A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, published by P.C.S., PO Box 267 Bairdford, PA 15006, USA, Introduction.)

“The first hint of occult association with the Foucault pendulum can be gleaned when we know that Napoleon III, then president of France, a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, an implacable foe of the Roman Catholic Church, a wannabe scientist, agreed with Foucault to install his grand exhibit of the Foucault pendulum in the Panthéon in Paris. The word ‘panthéon’ refers to a temple dedicated to ‘all the gods’. This building, constructed originally as the Church of St Genevieve and taken over by the smaller revolution of 1848, was just perfect to mock the geocentricism of common sense, Scripture and the Catholic Church’s declarations of 1616 and 1633.

Thereafter, President Napoleon III encouraged the use of other Churches as display sites for the contraption, exhibitions that must have generated howls of laughter in the pits of hell where the Copernican revolution was first dreamed up. For those of us still conscious of the great battle between the Christian faith and those that despise it, the war of Principalities and Powers, this was indeed a great victory for the occult forces of freemasonry.”

“A final irony of the intriguing connection between the Foucault pendulum and religion is that many of the early scientific reports on the pendulum presented to the London Philosophical Society in England were authored by “Reverend” so-and-so, reflecting the fact that science started out originally as “natural philosophy” taught in religious schools. The word ‘science’ wasn’t even in common use until the middle of the nineteenth century – just when the Foucault pendulum appeared on the scene.” (Elmendorf, Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society,  p.26.)

Elmendorf says:

“Umberto Eco’s novel Foucault pendulum is full of esoteric medieval plots and the abstruse meanings and symbolisms of secret societies, which climax dramatically in the Musee National des Techniques, in Paris, where the original Foucault pendulum bob used in the 1851 Pantheon exhibit is displayed and the complete 1855 pendulum operates today . . .

“. . . the darkened, altar-like settings of many Foucault pendulum displays, and the procedures, traditions and trappings associated with them giving a strong impression of a religious aspect to the device. The bob, swinging slowly and eerily back and forth, incites thoughtful wonder if not reverential awe in anyone who sees a Foucault pendulum for the first time. You might expect the operator to come dressed in priestly robes and chanting incantations as he sets up the pins, adjusts the dials of the hidden mechanisms and burns the thread to start the pendulum swinging. Indeed, the Foucault pendulum does promulgate a religious message, as we have seen, and its purpose is to make a connection with a sort of ‘hidden force,’ much as a new-age channeler would claim to do.

“Pendulums have figured in occult activities and ceremonies for thousands of years. Sometimes termed ‘radiesthesic tools,’ they are used in various forms of divination. Pendulums claiming to be ‘antennas to a higher power’ are sold through supermarket tabloids. Pendulums are inherently mesmerising devices, and are widely used in hypnotism. Hidden mechanisms are a staple of occult ceremonies. The use of fire is common.

“[The pendulum] is a useful device in literature and drama. Edgar Allen Poe utilized a pendulum in his horrible tale of torture at the hands of the Inquisition, ‘The Pit and the Pendulum.’ A swinging (and falling) chandelier is involved in the climax of ‘The phantom of the Opera.’ Another sign of the occult of Foucault pendulums is the secrecy surrounding their actual operation, and the seeming reluctance of experimenters to give complete performance figures and lay their difficulties out on the table.

“I think there is more to this than technical pride, because it is characteristic of most reports published on the Foucault pendulums, starting with Foucault’s original experiments …”

[Footnote: An article in The Physics Teache Sept 1981 describing a short Foucault pendulum for corridor display in a school made the following remarkable statement: ‘The complete pendulum unit can be seen inside the enclosure, but the wire suspension device and electromagnetic drive mechanism are intentionally hidden from the observer.’]

“There are a lot of strange things about the Foucault pendulum, and it does seem that there is some kind of an occult connection involved somewhere, even if I haven’t put my finger on it. The thing is loaded with philosophical and religious aspects in the guise of physics, and these are exploited to the greatest possible extent in all major displays.” (Elmendorf, pp.27-28)

How it is Supposed to Work

A Foucault pendulum is constructed with its bob free to swing in any direction. Under the bob is placed a ‘base plate,’ with precision markings like the face of a 24-hour clock. It begins its sway as any normal pendulum does, i.e., to and fro in a straight line. Soon however, the bob begins to turn, all the time cutting grooves in the clay at its base. Most textbooks, technical articles, plaques, and other accounts give an explanation of its operation similar to this one below.

“For simplicity, let us consider such a pendulum swinging at one of the poles. At other latitudes it will have a more complicated motion, but the principle is the same. Since the pendulum is swinging from a universal joint, the plane of its motion will remain fixed in absolute space, while the earth rotates underneath.” (D.W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, doubleday, 1959, p.112.)

In answer to this assertion Elmendorf replies:

“The plane of a Foucault pen¬dulum cannot possibly remain “fixed in space,” as these texts say, at least not anywhere except at the poles and when swinging east-west at the equator. Think about it. If it did, the pendulum would soon be crashing through the wall of the museum, and if it kept on swinging, it would return to its starting position every 24 hours regardless of its location, neither of which actually occurs.”

But the fact is, according to Elmendorf’s thorough research, the Foucault pendulums seldom achieve turning rates closer than 15 percent to the theoretical. Compared to a sundial their daily movements are a joke, swinging in erratic directions proving that it is not an instrument controlled solely by the supposed steady rotation of the earth underneath it, but that the sensitive bob is moved by other unknown inertial influences.

Because of the enormous difficulties in actually getting a Foucault pen¬dulum to work properly, nearly all of them are rigged to do what they are supposed to do naturally. The theory is there, the instrument is there, the earth is supposedly rotating, but the damn things just do not oblige as predicted. Instead they show mysterious perturbations and erratic motions that cause the turning rate to vary from those expected. 150 years of investigation still cannot explain why this should be so and perhaps never will.

The first short cut to a successful hoax was to use various ingenious ways to drive the pendulum arm to do the right thing and yet be able to disclaim it affects the turning rate of the pendulum. Elmendorf refutes this disclaimer in his study. The second operation that is essential to all sham Foucault pendulums is to damp them. In order to keep it in a straight line the motion of the pendulum is ‘damped’ at just the right point in the swing. On this rigging Elmendorf says:

“Whenever damping is present, deliberate or not, sophisticated or not, hidden or not, the natural motion of the pend¬ulum, including the Foucault turning itself, has been altered, and is no longer an honest Foucault pendulum.”

The third operation necessary to have any hope of even the pretence of proper functioning is tuning. The object of many little adjustments and man¬ipulation of the controls is to achieve a ‘clear and convincing exhibit for your consumption.’ Again Elmendorf provides many technical details of such tuning adding “the proof of the pudding is in the turning, and the proof of the fudging is in the fooling with the settings and controls to get the right turning rate. Not too fast, not too slow, but just right, that’s the name of the game in the world of Foucault pendulums.”

However, so erratic are the things that soon another tuning is necessary; then another, the settings readjusted and the dials reset to demonstrate for all to see that the earth rotates. “And that’s what the Foucault pend¬ulum is in most cases – a demonstrator and not a scientific instrument at all. The bottom line is that almost all Foucault pendulums are not what they pretend to be. They are faking it.”

Do Some Work?

Richard Elmendorf says ‘almost’ for there are ‘pure,’ un-driven Foucault pendulums to be found which will exhibit a turning, although always erratic. One such pendulum is in the University of Colorado in Boulder Co. USA. Dur¬ing its daily stint it will turn approximately 90 degrees (25% of a rotation). Can it be claimed the students of Colorado experience proof for a partial rotation of the earth? The answer is a resounding no. First of all the very idea that the earth revolves under the pendulum is utter nonsense. You may as well try to say that if you jump in the air and hold yourself up with both shoelaces the earth would turn under you. That is the belief required of us by the Earthmovers with their Foucault pendulums. But why and how then can a pure Foucault pendulum turn even 90 degrees as the Boulder one does? The answer is that there is an inertial field around the earth and it is this effect that causes the bob to change its position over time – the same effect that Guglielmini and Coriolis found some years earlier.

There seems to be only two possible reasons for the earth’s inertial field: a rotating earth or a rotating universe around the earth. In 1883, some years after Foucault’s demonstration and ‘proof’ for the earth’s rotation, Ernst Mach, a top-notch physicist of the time, for what it was worth, said one need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth where the ear¬th is treated as being at rest. Other unknown factors then add to its movement leading not to a smooth synchronised turn but to an erratic series of partial turns. According to their own physics then, Mach’s Principle in effect negates all demonstrations in the earth’s inertial field as proof for anything but that the field exists.

“Mach made the further suggestion that inertia is not an inherent property of matter but is the result of forces caused by the dis¬tant galaxies. According to this hypothesis, the inertial force on a given mass . . . is caused by the action of all the matter in the un-iverse.” (Moon and Spencer. ‘Mach’s Principle’ 1959.)

Support for Mach’s relativity theory would also come from Albert Einstein. He too concluded that a centrifugal force on an object in the earth’s rest frame is inadmissible as proof of a rotating earth, for in the earth’s frame that force could equally arise from ‘the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses.’ Such relativity would of course be better known under his General Theory of Relativity of 1915. After Einstein came a top Viennese scientist, Professor Hans Thirring, who in 1918 agreed with Mach’s Principle, and said that the Coriolis effect can also be accounted for equally well in a geocentric reference frame when he stated ‘the required equivalence be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.’

“For a rotating shell of matter . . . Thirring found the interesting result that the field in the interior of the shell . . . is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, thus leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.’ (G. Moller: The Theory of Relativity, 1952.)

So it seems science has known since 1883 that the Coriolis Effect and the movement of the Foucault pendulum can be equally accommodated in a geocentric model of the universe. Since then many physicists have written papers confirming this conclusion.

So, does the earth spin? The late Sir Fred Hoyle, once accepted as one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, affirms the current position of science in regard to the long held claim that it does:

“We can talk with precision of a body as spinning around relative to something or another, but there is no such thing as absolute spin: the Earth is not spinning to those of us who live on its surface and our point of view is as good as anyone else’s – but no better.”  (F. Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p304.)

Interesting to note that The Foucault Pendulum was installed at the United Nations (Monolithic) Headquarters in New York City, NY

[The EARTHMOVERS is an unpublished manuscript upholding the geocentricity of the universe, which was serialized on the Cathinfo forum. It is a very broad work by a very zealous Catholic layman. This excerpt is taken from the manuscript. The bulk of the manuscript can be viewed at www.cathinfo.com. The thread is entitled: The Earthmovers.]

On further investigation by The Bloody Truth YouTube channel it is revealed that the major installations of Foucault pendulums world wide, have been manufactured and installed by just one company. This company helpfully provides a pdf to inform the operator how to dumb down the explanations of what is being seen for the public. It also describes the electromagnetic drive system used to keep the pendulum in motion (confirming what we found out earlier)

For more on the truth about Foucault’s Pendulum, see this blog post:

Was Foucault’s Pendulum A Fraud

Was Samuel Birley Rowbotham A Nutter? Let The Free Press Decide…


Zetetic Astronomy, by ‘Parallax’ (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816 – 1884), under the pseudonym ‘Parallax’, lectured for two decades up and down Britain promoting his unique flat earth theory. This book, in which he lays out his world system, went through three editions, starting with a 16 page pamphlet published in 1849 and a second edition of 221 pages published in 1865. The third edition of 1881 (which had inflated to 430 pages) was used as the basis of this etext.

Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents, and his followers, who included many well-educated people, were equally tenacious.

Back in the 1800’s we actually had quite a diverse, free press that wasn’t constrained by the monopolies of control we have in place today. Their opinions of Rowbotham’s presentations are a breathe of fresh air in this day and age.

p. 402



“TROWBRIDGE MECHANICS’ INSTITUTION.–On Monday and Tuesday evenings last two lectures were delivered by a gentleman adopting the name of ‘Parallax,’ to prove modern astronomy unreasonable and contradictory: that the earth is a plane or disc and not a globe, the sun, moon, and stars, self-luminous, &c., &c. The lectures were well attended, and were delivered with great skill, the lecturer proving himself thoroughly acquainted with the subject in all its bearings.”–Wilts Independent, January 18th, 1849.

[Although “Parallax” had been delivering lectures for several years previously, in various parts of England, the above was the first notice which ever appeared in any newspaper.]

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY [after details].–The lecturer is not a theorist, and the matter is sufficiently important to claim the attention of the scientific world.”–Liverpool Mercury, January 25th, 1850.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–‘Parallax’ repeated his lectures on this subject (by permission of the High Sheriff of the county) in the Court House here, to large and respectable auditories of our townspeople. The nature of these lectures is extraordinary, explaining that the earth is not a globe, but a fixed circular plane–that the sun moves in the firmament–and that, in fact, our present astronomical knowledge is altogether fallacious and inconsistent with natural phenomena. . . . The audience listened with the deepest attention, and appeared astonished at the revelations of the lecturer. At the close of each lecture several gentlemen entered the lists with ‘Parallax,’ and a lively and interesting discussion ensued. ‘Parallax,’ however, maintained his principles with infinite tact and ability, and answered his opponents in a masterly manner. The audiences left strongly impressed

p. 403

with the startling facts to which they had been listening–the most sceptical, at least, philosophising after the manner of Hamlet:–

‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.’

[paragraph continues] As to ‘Parallax’ himself, we must say that we seldom listened to a more clear, perspicuous, and convincing lecturer. He is evidently a man of gifted intellect, and deep scientific attainments. “–Athlone Sentinel, May 21st, 1851.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–‘Parallax’ has just concluded a second course of four very interesting lectures, to large and respectable audiences, in the Court House here [details follow]. At the close of each lecture a very animated discussion took place; and although some very strong arguments were brought forward, ‘Parallax’ maintained his ground. We have seldom met with a lecturer endowed with such strong argumentative powers who, in language so simple, could present so quickly and clearly to the mind the ideas he wished to impart. The simple manner in which he endeavoured to elucidate his subject, and bring it within the comprehension of his hearers, as well as the good temper and forbearance displayed during a lengthened discussion with some very able disputants, called forth a vote of thanks at the conclusion, which was acceded to without a dissentient voice.”–Westmeath Independent, May 24th, 1851.

“During the past week ‘Parallax’ has visited Preston, and lectured at the Institution to numerous and respectable audiences. The first was con-fined to a marshalling of his experiments [here lengthy details follow]. His lectures were delivered in a simple, unassuming style, and his illustrations and language were of a character to suit the comprehension of all. He appears to have studied well his subject, to have made himself master of it in all its details, and to be armed at all points against those who may enter with him into the lists of controversy.”–Preston Guardian, August 7th, 1852.

“A gentleman adopting the name of ‘Parallax’ has been delivering lectures at the Hall on Zetetic Astronomy. The principle he proceeds upon is to admit of no theories, and to take nothing for granted. He holds that the earth is not a revolving globe but a fixed plane, and that the sun moves in the firmament. The lecturer is evidently a gentleman of deep learning, and is thoroughly in earnest. We understand that the lectures are about to be re-delivered, and that then the system will be fully developed.”–Leicester Chronicle, June 3rd, 1854.

“We invite the attention of all who feel an interest in subjects of this kind to these lectures, as, if the statements made by the lecturer in reference to the heights of distant objects be incontrovertible, they would seem

p. 404

very seriously to invalidate some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy.”–Leicester Advertiser, June 3rd, 1854.

“In another part of to-day’s Herald we publish a synopsis of the lecture on ‘Zetetic Astronomy.’ We have taken some pains to give the lecturer’s definitions of his philosophy, and mode of illustrating it. But, inasmuch as the system of the lecturer differs in every point of view from our own study of astronomy, and from all previous teachings on the subject, there must be a great error on one side or the other. ‘Parallax,’ as a lecturer, as a sound logician, clear, lucid reasoner, calm and self-possessed, we have never seen surpassed.”–Norfolk Herald, November 1st, 1856.

PARALLAX.’–The closing lectures of the series were delivered on Monday and Wednesday last, and we do not know when we have heard such striking lessons on the art of reasoning as were afforded by these lectures. As a reasoner we much question if ‘Parallax’ can be surpassed; and the gentlemanly manner in which the discussions were conducted brought out that power to a very high degree.”–Yarmouth Free Press, November 22nd, 1856.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY—THE EARTH NOT A GLOBE–‘Parallax’ has lectured to respectable and critical audiences in the new room, Corn Exchange. No one could fail to admire his power as a disputant. After the lectures he met the questions put to him by the most enlightened and scientific citizens with a readiness of reply which astonished his hearers; and he challenged to meet any of them on the points raised, and would stand or fall. by the issue depending on facts; but no one accepted his challenge. Report states that he will visit Ely again, when no doubt there will be a full room. Lecturers on the Newtonian system, with their apparatus, orreries, &c., completely fail to interest the people here. ‘Parallax’ has the ability to do this; he met even the ‘sledge-hammer’ of Mr. Burns with only a gentlemanly retort.”–Cambridge Chronicle, December 27th, 1856.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–Three lectures were delivered on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings last, at the Lecture Hall in this town, by a gentleman adopting the name of ‘Parallax,’ to prove modern astronomy unreasonable and contradictory–that the earth is a plane, or a disc, and not a globe–the sun, moon, and stars, self-luminous, &c., &c. The lectures were delivered in a manner which could not fail to be comprehended, and which left no doubt that the lecturer was thoroughly acquainted with the subject he was discussing. We have seldom heard a man with stronger argumentative powers, sounder logic, or more convincive reasoning. The revelations of the lecturer appeared to completely astound his audiences, who, for the greater part, left with a strong impression that the previous teachers of astronomy must have been greatly in error. ‘Parallax’ is undoubtedly

p. 405

a gentleman of no mean intellect, and must have studied deeply to have reached such scientific attainments.”–Croydon Chronicle, January 24th, 1857.

[After report.] “The unquestionable ability with which ‘Parallax’ has met his opponents has drawn forth much applause.”–Leicestershire Mercury, August 14th, 1858.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–No doubt many of our readers have been mystified and surprised within the last week by the announcement that, in three lectures, at the Northampton Mechanics’ Institute, a gentleman who calls himself ‘Parallax,’ would undertake to prove the earth not a globe, &c., &c. . . . We were highly gratified by the manner in which this important subject was handled by ‘Parallax’–a pseudonym which the lecturer informed his audience he had adopted in order to avert the effect of an insinuation that his startling announcement is but the morbid desire of an individual to be known as the propounder of a philosophy boldly at variance with that of the great astronomers of the past and present. His subject was handled in a plain and easy manner, his language and allusions proving him a man of education and thought, and certainly not a pedant. The experiments mentioned, divested of technicality in their recital, and understandable by all, were of such a nature as to cause a start of surprise at their simplicity and truthfulness. . . . It is not for us to pronounce a verdict upon so important an issue; ‘Parallax’ may be in error, but as far as his reasonings from fact and experiment go, there is much to set scientific men thinking. His arguments consist of facts, and such as are patent to all degrees of mental capacity. . . . In the discussions which followed, ‘Parallax’ certainly lost no ground, either in answer to questions or to some broad assertions quoted from learned authorities.”–South Mid-land Free Press, August 14th, 1858.

“While Lord Brougham, Professor Owen, and Dr. Whewell, have been assisting at the inauguration of the statue of Sir Isaac Newton, at Grantham, ‘Parallax’ has been startling the good people of Coventry by blotting the face of fair Mother Earth, declaring her long respected rotundity a modern fable. . . . This is not the age for intolerance and bigotry with respect to science; new discoveries and new lights are treated with respect from whatever quarter they may emanate, and if ‘Parallax’ can make good his pretensions, his name will be immortalised by posterity. . . . We thank ‘Parallax’ for exciting an interest in the subject of astronomy which perhaps lecturers, according to the received hypothesis, would have failed to create.”–Coventry Herald, October 1st, 1858.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–In this glorious nineteenth century, the boasted age of progress and reform, in which the strides of intellect are so rapidly

p. 406

approaching perfection, we cannot be surprised that such a beautiful system of Zetetic Astronomy as that expounded by ‘Parallax’ should entirely supersede the doctrine taught by Newton, and more especially when we are told that this Zetetic system is the only one which is consistent with common sense, and agreeable with the records contained in the Holy Scriptures. Now if this statement be true, all the readers of the ‘Free Press’ will agree in giving this philosophy a hearty welcome.”–Coventry Free Press, October 1st, 1858.

“ZETETIC PHILOSOPHY.–During the past week four lectures have been delivered at our Institution, Royal Hill, which are to be continued on four evenings next week. To say that these lectures are extraordinary in their character is but saying the least that can possibly be said concerning them. The exceedingly gifted lecturer, who apparently prefers to be known as ‘Parallax,’ demonstrates the Newtonian theory of astronomy to be in opposition to facts; and in so doing demonstrates that the Bible is literally true in its philosophical teachings. From this, the groundwork of his philosophy, spring teachings and doctrines which cause us to hold our breath in the contemplation of them, and compel us, as public journalists, to withhold our opinion on subjects so vast, so important to man, and so utterly at variance with the commonly received notions of the day. Is it for us to say that a greater than a Newton shall not arise? No! we wait the issue. If ‘Parallax’ be wrong there can be nothing easier than for our savans of Greenwich to overthrow his doctrines; but if our readers think they would have an easy task so to do, we can only say be present at his concluding lectures, and judge for yourselves. . . . It is urged that this ‘somebody or other’ who has the audacity to come right into Greenwich, above all places in the enlightened world, is very strong–strong in his facts, strong in his arguments, and appears after all to get on the right side of his audiences. This much we do know, that there are thinking men in our town who have been compelled to bend to the overpowering weight of evidence against our modern ideas. If it be true that some have tried to overthrow him and yet failed, let them go again, and still again, and nip this growth in the bud, ere a giant oak arises which will scorn their science and defy their teachings.”–Greenwich Free Press, May 11th 1861.

“‘PARALLAX’ AT THE LECTURE HALL.–This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them–we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their

p. 407

weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer’s hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If ‘Parallax’ be wrong, for Heaven’s sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. ‘Parallax’ is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us.”–Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

“EARTH NOT A GLOBE.–On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, ‘Parallax’ delivered his lectures at the Chatham Lecture Hall. The science he sets forth he denominates ‘Zetetic Astronomy.’ Whatever his hearers may think of his philosophy, they must admit that his lectures show him to have read and thought much. His discourses are very pleasing and interesting, and he expounds his doctrines in a way that ought to offend none. The variety of questions which a number of gentlemen asked the lecturer were readily and courteously answered, and in a way which appeared to satisfy most of the questioners. The audiences got so interested in these discussions that it was midnight before all the arguers left. They evidently took the deepest interest in the subjects presented to them. Next week ‘Parallax’ is to give more lectures, as announced in our advertising columns.”–Chatham News, June 6th, 1863.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–It will be seen, on reference to our advertising columns, that ‘Parallax’ will repeat his course of three lectures. He has deeply interested the public, and has had full audiences. We defer giving our opinion until the whole series of lectures have been given. Certainly Parallax’ is a man of strong argumentative powers, sound logic, and convincing reasoning.”–Rochester and Chatham Journal, June 6th, 1863.

“There is a startling novelty in store for the scientific men of London. One who calls himself ‘Parallax’ wields a battle-axe against the present astronomical theories, giving lectures to the effect that the earth is not a globe but a fixed circular plane [particulars follow]. ‘Parallax’ has moved in the best provincial circles, but his orbit has hitherto been distant from London.”–Court Journal, April 9th, 1864.

“THE EARTH NOT A GLOBE.–We beg to direct attention to the second

p. 408

course of lectures now being delivered by ‘Parallax’ at the Society’s Hall. Those who take an interest in this scientific subject would be much enlightened by hearing the views of the lecturer, which are given in a clear and logical manner, and carry conviction with them.”–Portsmouth Guardian, April 21st, 1864.

“THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.–We invite the attention of our readers to the remarkable lectures being delivered by a gentleman adopting the name of ‘Parallax,’ with illustrations, explaining that the earth is not a globe but a fixed circular plane, and that the sun actually moves in the firmament. These lectures contain a vast amount of deep scientific research, and proclaim ‘Parallax’ a man of varied and solid attainments. He has well and completely concatenated his subject, and appears master of his position.”–Weekly Mail, May 23rd, 1864.

“‘PARALLAX’ AND HIS TEACHINGS.–No one can doubt that ‘Parallax’ has made a hit at Gosport, and has created quite a sensation. The Zetetic philosopher is an able reasoner; concede but his first point, skilfully put, and you stand no chance against his fifteen years’ platform experience. For three nights [details follow]. During these discussions ‘Parallax’ has not always had fair play; as may well be supposed there is a degree of prejudice against his teachings, and hot words have ensued. On Wednesday the arguments lasted until after midnight.”–Gosport Free Press, May 14th, 1864.

“EARTH NOT A GLOBE.–Last evening the gentleman bearing the nom de plume of ‘Parallax’ delivered at the Athenæum the first of a series of lectures to prove the fallacy of the Newtonian principles regarding the rotundity of the earth. There was a very large attendance, every seat in the place being occupied, and many who could not obtain sitting room stood, filling up the whole of the available space in the hall. A chairman was elected, as it was expected there would be a hot discussion on so striking a subject. The lecturer commenced his discourse by [here lengthy details follow]. At the conclusion of the lecture a very animated discussion ensued between many gentlemen of the town and the lecturer, and we must say that he was a good match for his opponents.”–Western Daily Mercury, September 27th, 1864.

“The second lecture of this series was delivered last evening. The hall was crammed to excess–in fact, many were unable to obtain admission. The lecturer briefly recapitulated a portion of his previous lecture. He went through the whole of the syllabus, amidst constant interruption, with the best possible temper, making his subject extremely interesting, and handling it in such an able manner as to elicit loud and frequent applause. Before the lecture was concluded it was quite evident, judging from the

p. 409

feelings exhibited by the majority of the audience, that ‘Parallax’ had impressed many of them with the truth of his ideas. It cannot be denied that he treats his subject in a very clever and ingenuous manner, and succeeds in drawing many over to agree with him. “–Western Daily Mercury, September 28th, 1864.

“The third of the above series of lectures was delivered last evening. The subject underwent a long and warm discussion, and the questions which were put to the lecturer were answered with a great degree of ingenuity. Upon the suggestion of a gentleman present, the lecturer said that, in conjunction with other gentlemen, he would be happy to make any experiments to ascertain the truth or fallacy of his teachings. This, we believe, will be acted upon, it being purposed to visit the Breakwater and the Eddystone Lighthouse, and there make the necessary observations, which no doubt will prove very interesting.”–Western Daily Mercury, September 30th, 1864.

“‘PARALLAX’ ON ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–Last evening the lecturer who has adopted this nom de plume gave his first lecture at the Athenæum. . . . The hall was crowded by a respectable audience. He laid before his hearers an entertaining, instructing, and very plausible collection of facts, upon which he based the deduction that the world was not an oblate spheroid, but a plane. The details were illustrated by diagrams, that were interestingly explained, in aid of his arguments; and when, in response to invitation, several gentlemen of experience, as nautical men and in the survey of land, questioned his opinions, and advanced strong antagonistic reasons, the replies were both clever and courteous. It was much regretted that very warm feeling was manifested by some of the auditors. . . . The lecturer was frequently applauded. He lectures again this evening, and there can be no doubt that the audience will be a numerous one, for in his lectures much unquestioned but valuable information is incidentally introduced, and much argument that is singularly difficult of controversion.”–Western Daily News, September 27th, 1864.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–During the current week three lectures have been delivered at the Athenæum, Plymouth, which have excited not a little commotion among the learned of our fellow-citizens. The lecturer, who has adopted ‘Parallax’ as the name by which he would be known among the scientific, commenced his course of lectures on Monday last, the building being crowded with an attentive and, we may add, a critical audience. The subject which was introduced that evening, ‘Earth not a Globe,’ was one calculated to excite attention in the minds of the philosophers or deep-thinkers of the present day, and as such the lecturer was evidently prepared to meet with opposition [details]. We are bound to admit that he

p. 410

handled his subject with consummate skill; and, whether he is right or wrong, we must do him the justice to acknowledge that he possesses all the great qualities which characterise a lecturer and a debater–consistently maintaining those principles which he holds to be correct, founded, as he proves them to be, upon the great Word of Truth, as established ere time began its course among men. We cannot attempt even an outline of the lectures: we have simply to record the facts that each lecture drew a very crowded assembly; that after each lecture an animated discussion took place, in which many gentlemen bore part; and we are free to express our conviction, without committing ourselves to an absolute belief in the doctrines enunciated, that ‘Parallax’ proved himself to be equal to the contest on which he had entered. All must admit the lecturer to have shown that his studies and his researches have been deep, powerful, and enduring.”–Plymouth Herald and United Service Journal, October 6th, 1864.

“PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.–On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics’ Institute. The reasoning of ‘Parallax,’ which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry–stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while ‘Parallax,’ remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which ‘Parallax’ said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanour, respectful bearing, and candour of ‘Parallax’ bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to

p. 411

be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character.”

“The lectures will be repeated next week, and as public discussion is invited at the end of each lecture, we hope it will be conducted temperately and with proper spirit. Meanwhile we claim, in justice to ‘Parallax,’ that no unjust erroneous prejudicial notions be formed of him without a hearing.”–Devonport Independent, October 15th, 1864.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–[After details.] We can tell our readers that ‘Parallax’ is a practised lecturer, a good speaker, a clever debater, and a courteous opponent. He has a plausible manner, and is thoroughly ‘posted’ in the standard philosophy as well as the system which he teaches, and is therefore no mean antagonist. Students of science may break a lance with him, but judging from his meetings at Gloucester and Stroud, we should say that an ordinary man is no match for him.”–Stroud Journal, October 28th, 1865.

“A conclave of scientific gentlemen sat to get up a reply, and just one of the number was able to state the answer: even that answer, scientific as it was, had a fallacy in it.”–Spectator, April 12th, 1856.

“The lecturer gained great praise for his ingenuity in proving that the earth is a plane surrounded by ice. . . The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial.”–Professor de Morgan, Cambridge University.

“‘PARALLAX’ ON ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–The gentleman who has adopted this noon de plume delivered his first lecture on Monday evening last There was a large and highly respectable audience–the hall being crowded. The lecture was a clear and elaborate exposition, &c. [lengthy details follow]. If we may judge by the applause by which some of the lecturer’s arguments were confirmed, we should say that many of those present were ready to exclaim: ‘Behold, a greater than Newton is here!’ A hot discussion followed, in which the Rev. Nixon Porter and other gentlemen took part, but Parallax’ maintained his ground.”–Warrington Guardian, March 24th, 1866.

“EARTH NOT A GLOBE.–On Monday last a gentleman adopting the nom de plume of ‘Parallax’–a very appropriate name, seeing that the basis of his arguments is the relation to each other of parallel lines–commenced a series of lectures at the Public Hall on ‘Zetetic Astronomy,’ a system directly opposed to the great Newtonian theory. That he is a clever man, and has studied the matter deeply, and that he is master of his subject, and thoroughly convinced of its truth, is apparent; and his arguments are certainly very plausible. The lecture drew large audiences, and among those present we noticed [here a list is given of many of the leading men

p. 412

and families of the district]. ‘Parallax’ commenced by explaining the word ‘Zetetic,’ which had been adopted, because they did not sit in their closets and endeavour to frame a theory to explain certain phenomena, but went abroad into the world, and thoroughly investigated the subject [here follows a long report of the three lectures]. Lengthy and animated discussions ensued; votes of thanks were passed to the lecturer and the chairman–the Rev. Nixon Porter, who declared that he was much struck with the simplicity and candour with which the lecturer had stated his views; and, after a promise by ‘Parallax’ that he would pay another visit to Warrington, the audience dispersed.”–Warrington Advertiser, March 24th, 1866.

“THE EARTH NOT A GLOBE.–Lectures on the above subject were de-livered this week in the Royal Assembly Room, Great George-street, Liverpool, by ‘Parallax,’ a gentleman known to the literary world by a work on ‘Zetetic Astronomy,’ and who came somewhat prominently before the Liverpool public fourteen or fifteen years ago through the columns of the Mercury. The hall was well filled by respectable and critical audiences. He commenced his first lecture by comparing the Newtonian principle of astronomy with the Zetetic (which must prove all and take nothing for granted); and endeavoured to demonstrate in a comprehensive and logical manner that the earth is not a globe but a plane; that, in fact, all theories of the earth’s rotundity are fallacious, and that the followers of Newton and other philosophers had been adopting and believing a ‘cunningly devised fable.’ The lectures were illustrated by numerous diagrams and experiments, and were listened to with the greatest attention by all present. ‘Parallax’ appears to have studied the peculiarities of his subject thoroughly, and was warmly applauded during the delivery of his lectures.”–Liverpool Mercury, October 3rd, 1866.

At the end of a detailed report of lectures at the Halifax Mechanics’ Hall it is stated:–“Whatever may be the truth or otherwise of the new system, certain it is that the lectures were well attended, and numbers of the audiences declared themselves converts.”–Halifax Guardian, April 13th, 1867.

“Coming to the facts of ‘Parallax.’ They are upon the whole admirably dealt with. . He exhibits an immense number of diagrams, and explains them with great ingenuity.”–Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, May 2nd, 1867.

“The Philosophical Hall last night was crowded with a thoughtful audience attracted by the formidable propositions which the lecturer enunciates and defends [particulars here follow]. These and similar extraordinary statements so utterly at variance with the recognised theories of the

p. 413

day, the lecturer maintains with a perspicuity and mastery of his subject which carries the audience to some extent along with him, and induces them to manifest symptoms of scientific unbelief.”–Leeds Mercury, May 8th, 1867.

“Without endorsing ‘Parallax’s’ teachings, it must be said that (at the Philosophical Hall, Leeds) he advanced them, supported them, and fought for them with a skill and intelligence, tact, and good temper which were not at all equalled by his opponents.”–Leeds Times, May 11th, 1867.

“He displays in his lectures a thorough acquaintance with the Newtonian philosophy, and presents his own peculiar views in such a way that they assume great plausibility and astonish his hearers. At the close of each lecture discussion is permitted, in the course of which ‘Parallax’ exhibits great debating tact and power; his answers to his opponents being frequently loudly applauded.”–Leeds Evening Express, May 23rd, 1867.

“ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.–His lectures furnish a clear, masterly, and very plausible exposition of his system. At the close of each lecture he invited discussion; and it must be admitted that ‘Parallax’ evinced varied knowledge, ability, and readiness in replying to objections.”–Bradford Review, July 6th, 1867.

“‘PARALLAX’ AT BRADFORD.–So long have astronomers averred the earth’s rotundity and its motion round the sun, that when ‘Parallax’ was announced to lecture we went to see the man who had ventured to controvert facts so long settled by the most recherché students in celestial science. To our surprise every position taken seemed fortified with keen logical reasoning, and an easy explanation was given of many of the tests previously considered absolute proofs of the earth’s rotundity. The lecturer contends [particulars are here given]. By many illustrations he disproved this rotundity, and astonished his audiences by showing how little there is to be relied on in what has been hitherto received as demonstration itself. ‘Parallax’ is unquestionably a very acute reasoner, a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate; and, by his frank and ingenuous manner, won largely on the convictions of his audience. Seldom have we seen an assembly so much absorbed in their subject; and the interest was maintained to the close. We feel it due to say that, if the data given are correct, there is no resisting the conclusions arrived at.”–Bradford Advertiser, July 6th and 13th, 1867.

“The lecturer invited discussion, and a warm controversy took place, but ‘Parallax’ stood his ground admirably. His delivery is free and unaffected, and the masterly style in which he handled his subject showed that he was a geometrician and mathematician of no ordinary merit.”–Dewsbury Chronicle, August 5th, 1867.

p. 414

“‘PARALLAX’ AT BIRSTAL.–This gentleman delivered his course of lectures in the Public Hall here on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday last [particulars here follow]. The lecturer thoroughly understands the subject which he has taken in hand. He is gifted with extraordinary debating power and acumen, and the manner in which he dealt with the subject also proved him to be well versed in all the sciences bearing upon his system of astronomy. His style of delivery, too, is one calculated to win the sympathies of an audience.”–Birstal Record, August 10th, 1867.

“THE EARTH A PLANE.–[Report of lecture at the Town Hall, Hanley, concludes as follows]:–A contemporary speaks of ‘Parallax’ as a very acute reasoner, a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate, adding that if the data given are correct there is no resisting the conclusions arrived at. Apart from these conclusions, to which he seems to lead most of his hearers in spite of themselves, the lectures are really an intellectual treat.”–Staffordshire Sentinel, February 8th, 1868.

“‘Parallax’ has just repeated his lectures in Warrington, which were presided over by the Rev. Nixon Porter, Alderman Holmes, ex-Mayor, and P. Rylands, Esq., M.P. The lecturer was introduced by the first-named gentleman as no stranger to Warrington, having visited them on former occasions, given our scientific men some pretty hard nuts to crack, had made certain statements and drawn certain inferences which, to say the least, were plausible, and demanded fair consideration. Any man should be fairly heard when he stood upon the foundation of truth, and braved the opposition which was invariably incurred when the current modes of thought were attacked and attempted to be controverted. If the lecturer’s statements were false, by all means let them be exploded; but, if true, let us thankfully receive them and all their consequences, giving to their zealous expounder the credit to which he is entitled. Questions such as those brought before the meeting should be fully considered and discussed. On introducing the lecturer on the third evening, the chairman (P. Rylands, Esq., M.P.) concluded his address as follows: ‘Every philosophical inquiry which challenged contradiction must have a good effect in causing them to think of the various natural phenomena by which they were surrounded, thus improving their minds, increasing the strength of their understandings, and adding to the general intelligence of the people.’ The lecturer, on rising, in reply to the oft-repeated question which had been put to him as to the good or use of his particular system of astronomy, even admitting it to be the true one, would say that, at the least, it was of great importance to a large commercial and mercantile nation such as ours, in correcting, improving, and rendering more practical and safe the art of navigation, on which the prosperity of the country so much depended. It was also a

p. 415

most important religious question–one scarcely second to any other religious question of the day. At present there was a great battle going on between religious and scientific men, the former upholding the truth of the Scriptures, and the latter believing in nothing but their own philosophy, which was in direct opposition to Scriptural teachings. Thousands of men at the present day declared the Scriptural astronomical expressions to be false, and regarded science and philosophy as all in all. One or the other must be false; both could not stand. If they were all simply dogs they might ‘bow-wow’ together, and think nothing more of the matter; but as they were men, endowed with sense and reason, the importance of the subject presented itself to them in all its intensity. If the earth was a globe, and the principles of modern astronomy were true, religious teaching could not be reconciled to such a state of things, and must consequently be false; but if, on the other hand, modern astronomy could be proved to be false, then would the religious philosophy stand forth as a grand reality, and show itself as the communicated expression of some great master of the universe. He had a few words to say to the so-called ‘free-thinkers’ of the day; those especially who prided themselves upon having become sceptical in matters of religion. He would have them to take care that the word ‘free-thinker’ was not misapplied. It was very possible, and not an uncommon thing, for a person to become as great a bigot in this respect as in any other. A free-thinker was not necessarily an atheist or even a sceptic; he might or might not be so, but he might also be a lover of true religion and a good Christian. He alone was a true free-thinker who was prepared to seek out and to hold fast to all the practical truths developed by human experience. He (the lecturer) had the deepest respect for those who could leave the old theoretical ‘ruts’ of thought, and dare to freely inquire for themselves into every subject, but he could not do other than pity and almost despise all those who profess to be ‘truth-seekers’ and ‘free-thinkers,’ and who yet will only use their powers for the promotion of religious scepticism. The man who refused evidence simply because it might lead him back to a recognition of Scriptural philosophy, and to seeing the necessity for a religious or devotional life, was neither wise nor good, but was indeed a bigot in the fullest sense of the term. The lecturer then proceeded to explain” [lengthy details follow].–See Warrington Guardian of September 36th and 19th, and Warrington Advertiser and Mail of September 19th, 1868.

“WESTBOURNE HALL.–By special desire, such was the interest taken in the propositions advanced, ‘Parallax’ was induced to repeat his three lectures, the first of which was delivered on Thursday evening last to a numerous and appreciative audience. . . . Although we must be

p. 416

understood as not endorsing all, yet he said enough to puzzle the most inveterate Newtonian philosopher present. . . . The lecture was amply illustrated by diagrams, without which it is impossible to do justice to the able remarks of the lecturer. . . . An animated discussion, which at times was rather irregular, took place; some of the gentlemen who entered the arena betraying more animus than ability. The lecturer replied readily to the various objections of his opponents; and, judging by the clamorous approval of the audience, he seemed to have gained the attention of many who were not disposed to look favourably on the claims of what is termed ‘Zetetic Astronomy.'”–Notting Hill and Bayswater Times, November 13th, 1869.

“The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. ‘Parallax,’ though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience.”–Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.Athenæum Journal for October 12, 1872.


The Great Moonlight Temperature Experiment


When I get challenged to show examples of how popular (so-called) science has misled us or deliberately lied to us, this simple experiment always comes to mind. The idea involves measuring the temperature of moonlight compared to moonshade, and is something anyone can test and draw their own conclusions from.

Our cherished text books and lab coated priests  tells us that Moon light is produced by the face of the Moon reflecting the rays of the sun. They also tell us that Moon light is marginally warm, but by such a minuscule amount that specialised (read: expensive & not available to everyone) equipment would be needed in order to measure this very slight temperature raise.

This is of course rubbish and simply repeating what they themselves were taught by their brainwashed teachers. In reality a couple of thermometers from a corner store with accuracy down to 0.1° Fahrenheit OR Celsius will do the job just fine.

Here are my rough instructions but, as is the beauty of physical science, anyone can improve, simplify, refine or redesign the experiment however they see fit


I was lucky enough, (11 months ago [wink wink]) to talk to the right person about this hot topic debate  on twitter. He’s a Senior Research Associate at Cardiff University that has much experience in relevant fields dealing with these measurements. After much debate he assured me that as soon as he has the time he will indeed be conducting his version of this potentially paradigm changing experiment




It’s strange that I’m having trouble finding credible sources explaining how moonlight is so degraded by the time it reaches us that the ‘warmth’ is imperceptible. There were many examples when I looked 2 years ago. There’s several “ask a Scientist” forums that seem to deliberately skirt the issue by asking questions like “can someone please define moonshade?” and other nonsense. When pressed they may claim:

“Moon light will actually warm a surface, but in an amount that could not be measured by regular measuring device.”

One answer I found particularly innovative in it’s avoidance, was in response to the question

“Is is possible to start a fire using moonlight?”

I imagine most people would read this in the context of using a magnifying glass or parabolic mirror to concentrate the moonlight, but the reply made me chuckle:

“Moonlight has a spectral peak around 650nm (the sun peaks at around 550nm). Ordinary solar cells will work just fine to convert it into electricity. The power of moonlight is about 500,000 times less than that of sunlight, which for a solar constant of 1000W/m^2 leaves us with about 2mW/m^2. After accounting for optical losses and a typical solar cell efficiency of roughly 20%, we can probably hope to extract approx. 0.1mW with a fairly simple foil mirror of 1 m^2 surface area. Accumulated over the course of a whole night with a full moon, this leaves us with around 6h∗3600s/h∗0.1mW ≈ 2J of energy. That’s plenty of energy to ignite a fire using the right chemicals and a thin filament as a heater.”

Below is the frequently flaunted debunking article at Physics Central, critiquing the use of laser thermometers in moonlight experiments, which have become the weapon of choice for the curious experimenter. His points about the accuracy of laser thermometers may be justified, despite being sanctioned by chefs and ‘elf n’ Safety bods routinely everyday.

What bugs me about this self proclaimed science guru is that he couldn’t actually be bothered to do the experiment himself, much less offer a better scientific way to determine the results. It would seem, they just don’t want us looking at this

Moonshine and Lunacy

Friday, October 02, 2015 – Posted by ‘Positron’ on Physics Central

As always the comment are where real ‘peer review’ is done (good and bad)






So, despite debating this with all walks of life and being told by many that they will be doing the experiment themselves, none have ever come back with any results (but I hate to name names [wink wink]).

This is similar to the request I’ve made to draw the configuration of earth, moon and sun, showing a gibbous moon during the day or a crescent moon at night (Impossible moon phases).

So, please feel free to join the many curious minds out there, and design and conduct your own experiment to measure moonlight temperatures and let me know how you get on. The 5 times I have performed this over the years has shown me just how easy it’s been for the Establishment to obfuscate, deceive and out right lie to us about the natural world around us.

This video seems to be one of the most comprehensive test I’ve seen, though many others have now been removed from the net

what does twitter say? Well my oldest follower (that’s time, not age) on twitter tried it out for himself the other day – shame on him for thinking he can ‘do science’

Nice one alien!


Others are a little more stuck in their ways, maybe because they haven’t/won’t #TESTIT






Find me on Twitter @SwearyG


Does Gravity affect Gyroscopes

I love this twitter thread


Flat earth proof 2016 – THE EARTH DOESN’T MOVE GYRO PROOF!

Gyroscopes and Gravity




So, does gravity affect gyroscopes? well as they are claimed to be in the ISS, the Shuttle, Satellites & Probes, then I guess gravity does not affect the humble gyroscope, Though many disciples of the Church of Scientism will defend the pleas of gravity in answer the top graphic.

And finally (Thanks to Nick at Phuket Word for compiling this)

“A practical demonstration of real physics with a gyroscope by physics lecturer Walter Lewin (not a FEer) that proves gyroscopes can only work above a flat, stationary earth; not a spinning globe. Gyroscopes are simply not affected by gravity. FYI. PENDULOUS VANES SERVE TO KEEP THE GYRO IN ORIGINAL POSITION – NOT TO FOLLOW ANY CURVE!” [ED. for more information on pendulous vanes see this blog post here

Link to full lecture: https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI 

To find out if a gyroscope can tell if the earth is a spinning ball & further gyro/gravity talk , click  here

Was Foucault’s Pendulum A Fraud

At this point in my research, I can’t think of a  more unscientific parlour trick than the plumb bob swung from a height which is heralded as the pinnacle of proof for the spinning ball earth.

If you are satisfied that the pendulous proof posited by Foucault is undeniable evidence of the rotation of a ball earth, then this blog is probably not for you. However, if you’re interested to learn that these parlour tricks run slow, fast, clockwise and anti-clockwise, rarely display the correct rotation rate and are often powered by motors with controls – then read on….

foucault pendulum Screenshot from 2016-11-19 16:54:22.png
Engraving in L’Illustration of Foucault’s pendulum in the Panthéon in 1851.


Below is poor Roger Bowley, a University of Nottingham Professor, desperately fighting his common sense whilst trying to explain the principles of the Foucault Pendulum. At one point he even swears when describing the need for the inclusion of a motor to drive it.
[Don’t miss his brain fart near the end when the paradoxes of the heliocentric universe start to break down]

You put a little motor in the top and give it a little jiggle…

Sounds scientific….


Read the rest below and see how they rationalise the inclusion of motors (they conceal in the roof) to run the pendulum

Title: The New Foucault Pendulum at Monash University
Authors: Moppert, C. F. & Bonwick, W. J.
Journal: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, P. 108, 1980




It would seem that even the most outwardly ardent heliocentric personalities such as the 7th Astronomer Royal George B. Airy and Reverend Baden Powell, Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford University had views about Foucault’s pendulum in private that were diametrically opposed to their public espousals [1]


This, however , is what the public heard

airy and powell on foucault pendulum saying now that it worked corruption aboundScreenshot from 2016-11-23 21:06:59.png

Other’s were less malleable to the Establishment’s position:

Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath – asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”

First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable – not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform – is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing! Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

“2. But did not Foucault’s pendulum prove that the earth revolves in twenty-four hours upon its axis? In the introduction to Ray’s Elements of Astronomy Mr. Peabody calls it “a beautiful experiment.” Andrew White triumphantly exclaims: “And in 1851 the great experiment of Foucault with the pendulum showed to the human eye the earth in motion around its own axis.” (Warfare, 1900, I, p. 157.) Let us glance briefly at the instrument called the pendulum. Foucault’s pendulum had a sixty-one pound ball on a steel-wire 223 feet in length. If we let a pendulum occillate in a direction north and south, then will its even oscillation, as Foucault assumes, be unaffected by the rotation of the plane, and consequently the earth will move ahead below its swinging-line. Now, if this is to prove the rotation of the earth, the deviation of the earth below from the swinging-line of the pendulum must be in all cases the same. But the trouble is, the deviation is not the same with all pendulums. The heavier the bob, the slower becomes the deviation of the pendulum; the lighter the bob, the more rapidly the deviation. Since the rotation of the earth upon its axis, if existing, must be a uniform one, necessarily with all pendulums the deviation should be uniform; but this is not the case. Or does the earth move with different velocity under different pendulums?

Dr. Schoepffer, an eye-witness of the experiment, says: “In an introductory speech Dr. Menzzer at Quedlinburg showed that until then there had been no proof for the Copernican hypothesis, the so-called proofs being, after close investigation, just as many confutations, until the Foucault pendulum showed the rotation of the earth uncontrovertibly. The pendulum was tied, the string was burnt, the swingings began, but the pendulum deviated to the left, instead of to the right. It was hastily brought to rest. New burning of the string. This time the deviation was the one desired, and we were invited again to be present in the church the next morning at eight o’clock, to be convinced that the deviation agrees with the theory. On the following morning, however, we saw that the pendulum during the night had changed its mind, and had from the deviation to the right again returned to the left. To me this new proof did not seem to be quite in order. My belief in the Copernican doctrine was shaken by the speech of Dr. Menzzer, and I concluded to go to Berlin for an explanation.

After seeing the pendulum-experiment here also and, strangely, again with a deviation to the left, I went to Alexander v. Humboldt, who was indeed ever the first refuge of those seeking information. He received me very friendly and spoke the memorable words: I have known, too, for a long time, that as yet we have no proof for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude.”

Furthermore, I have found, by careful experiments, that a skillful experimenter can let the pendulum deviate either to the left or to the right. And we must not overlook the fact that the deviations may be caused by air-currents, electricity, earth-magnetism, special apparatus, and perhaps many other causes. Blunt and Cox observed the most curious and contrary swingings. Phillips of New York found very great hourly deviations in the swinging-line. Walker observed a peculiarly swift deviation when the pendulum swings in the magnetic meridian. D’Oliveira at Rio de Janeiro stated that the pendulum deviates to the right in the direction of the meridian, but to the left in the direction of the parallel. This deviation, diametrically opposed to the theory, was seen very often. And sometimes the pendulum does not deviate at all. Much more could be said against this “beautiful experiment.” Though beautiful it may seem to the theorist, it certainly is far from being irrefragable evidence for the earth’s motion.

Fifty Reasons Copernicus or the Bible – Philosophy & Vain Deceit or True Science? Which is Right? by FE Pasche 1915


There’s a slight problem with the Parlour Trick Pendulum, in that it gets effected by eclipses…go figure

  1. Mathematical mysteries: Foucault’s pendulum and the eclipse


In reality eclipses are not the only factors that affect this plumb bob, as you can see below…

“It is the duty of those who, from the behaviour of a pendulum at different latitudes, contend that the earth is spherical, to first prove that no other cause could operate besides greater proximity to a centre of gravity in producing the known differences in its oscillations. This not being done, nor attempted, the whole matter must be condemned as logically insufficient, irregular, and worthless for its intended purpose.”

“The following table comprises the results of the most reliable pendulum experiments which have thus far been made, and. among which the extensive series of observations by General Sabine holds the first place.”

(Particulars are here given of sixty-seven experiments made in every latitude north of the equator, from 0° 1´ 49″ north to 79° 49´ 58″ north; and of twenty-nine experiments in the south from latitude 0° 1′ 34″ south, to Cape Horn, 55° 51´ 20″ south, and South Shetland. 62° 56´ 11″ south.) We have here before us the results […] differing to a remarkable extent, as compared with the results generally from the computed values. General Sabine observes of these discrepancies that ‘they are due in a far greater degree to local peculiarities than to what may be more strictly called errors of observation.’ And already Mr. Bailey (in Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 7), had expressed the opinion ‘that the vibrations of a pendulum are powerfully affected, in many places, by the local attraction of the substratum on which it is swung, or by some other direct influence at present unknown to us, and the effect of which far exceeds the errors of observation.”

“From the foregoing remarks and quotations it is obvious that the assumption of Sir Isaac Newton that the earth is an oblate spheroid, is not confirmed by experiments made with the pendulum.”

“The Foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such.”
Richard G Elmendorf

So, in answer to the title of this blog “Was Foucault’s Pendulum A Fraud” I shall leave the final word to Lady Blount, from her book “The Romance of Science” as diplomacy is not my strong point:

We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived.”

Read more about Foucault’s Follies in this blog post:

Further research here:

[1] The Popular and Scientific Reception of the Foucault Pendulum in the United States
Author(s): Michael F. Conlin
Source: Isis, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 181-204
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/237048