The nine-dot puzzle and connecting "outlying dots"

image: Wikimedia commons, with dots added (link to original).

The "nine-dots puzzle" is often presented as an exercise in "thinking outside the box," and it most certainly is that.

But it is also an excellent metaphor for the process we undergo as we deal with the data life presents to us and as we attempt to find paradigms which help us to understand that data. 

The puzzle is a thought-exercise in which nine dots are arranged in three rows of three (or three columns of three, whichever way you choose to look at it), similar to the arrangement of a "tic-tac-toe" pattern. The illustration above shows the arrangement for the puzzle.

The goal of the game is to try to connect all nine of the dots, using only four straight lines, without picking your pencil (or pen) up off of the paper (or writing surface):

If you have never had the opportunity to wrestle with this particular puzzle, and would like to try it for yourself without reading any discussion that might give away the solution and thus spoil the fun of the game, please stop reading now and come back later!

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Readers who are familiar with the possible solutions will know that in order to connect all nine of the dots with only four straight and connected lines, you have to be able to "think outside the box" and draw the lines beyond the boundary of the implied square that the dots make by their arrangement. 

Obviously, there is nothing in the rules of the puzzle as stated which forces you to draw the lines within the borders of the square created by the outer dots. That invisible boundary is only "self-imposed" -- and yet it will prevent you from finding the solution until you can see that you don't need to stay within the "mental cage" that we unthinkingly impose on ourselves when presented with this puzzle for the first time.

So, the nine-dots puzzle is an excellent illustration of that tendency, and of the need for examining our own "self-imposed barriers" in other situations in our lives -- situations that may involve more data-points than just nine dots arranged on a page.

But I believe the nine-dots puzzle can also provide an additional, related illustration of the way we tend to impose "paradigms" or "frameworks" or "filters" through which we view the myriad data-points or "dots" which we find in the world around us during our journey through this incarnate life. In many ways, we do this out of necessity, in order to be able to make sense of things, beginning when we are very small and progressively altering our paradigm or framework as we grow up and encounter new data-points or see new ways of connecting ideas or explaining events.

The question that this puzzle illustrates very well, in my opinion, is the question of "What do you do, when you find that the paradigm you are using leaves out important dots?"

This is the question that is worked out in most of the mystery stories and "CSI television shows" that we enjoy, going back to the formula used by Arthur Conan Doyle in the Sherlock Holmes stories (or in the Scooby Doo television series from the late 1960s and early 1970s, or in the pioneering mystery stories written by Edgar Allan Poe in the first half of the nineteenth century).

In those stories, "the authorities" usually have a theory or thesis that they are using to explain the evidence or clues that they have found -- a paradigm or framework with which they are "connecting all the dots," so to speak. Then, the outsider in the story (such as Sherlock Holmes, or Scooby and the gang) comes into the picture and discovers a few more "dots" which the solution offered by the authorities leaves out. 

Above: Four lines which attempt to connect all the dots -- but Sherlock Holmes (or Shaggy and Scooby) might ask, "What about these two dots over here?"

Through the course of the investigation, a new outline or framework to connect all the dots emerges, leading to a new way of understanding the situation (and often revealing that the culprit was someone quite different from the person implicated in the original storyline accepted or promoted by the authorities). 

I think this is a very helpful metaphor which is applicable in many different situations -- from the way we choose to understand important events in history, to the way we interpret the "big questions" regarding the meaning of life and our purpose here in this material world.

By virtue of the fact that this material-spiritual universe in which we find ourselves contains far more than "nine dots" for us to try to understand, there are an almost-infinite variety of paradigms or frameworks or "shapes of the lines" which people adopt in order to try to make sense of the world around them.

When we find one that seems to work as an explanation, we can be very resistant to letting go of it, even if we start noticing some suspicious dots that our framework doesn't seem to include or connect very well. 

There is actually good reason for being somewhat resistant to casting aside a paradigm which we have adopted over the course of time and which seems to do a reasonably good job of explaining and connecting the dots we have encountered over the course of our life. Data-points which originally looked like "outliers" may turn out to have been illusory, or deceptive, or irrelevant for some other reason. New paradigms which someone offers and which seem to connect these new dots may in fact ignore other dots which our old framework did explain, but which the new framework asks us to forget about.

We don't want to be too careless about jettisoning one paradigm which seemed to explain the universe (or some historical event) and adopting one that radically re-draws the lines in a shape that was totally different from what we were using before. Because of this, people are usually very resistant to doing so, and with good reason.

But, as the stories of Sherlock Holmes or Scooby Doo or Edgar Allan Poe (and countless others, including many from real life) all illustrate, there are in fact times when the outlying dots are important enough to cause us to re-evaluate even our most cherished and tightly-held explanation or belief system. 

There are times when our paradigm-driven interpretation or understanding of the events that are going on in the world around us is actually deeply mistaken, and when continuing to use a mistaken paradigm or framework will actually lead to very serious negative consequences.

Although it takes a lot to let go of a framework or paradigm that we have held for a long time and which seemed to "connect all the dots" for us for many years, sometimes it is necessary. Most of us have probably had the experience of doing so at least once or twice already.

I have already explained in the past (in many interviews and in the introduction to my most-recent book) that the world-view or paradigm provided by a literal interpretation of the scriptures collected into what we today call the Bible seemed to "connect all the dots" very well for me for many years of my adult life.

However, the more evidence that I found which indicated that the stories in the Bible -- virtually from first to last -- can be shown to allegorize the features and motions of very specific constellations, the more I had to question whether the shape of the line I was using as a framework or paradigm was accurate. Eventually, I saw "enough outlying dots" that I was forced to alter my understanding of the way they all fit together.

The same sort of process can also be applied to the framework of history, or to specific historical events which have had a great impact on the direction of geopolitical events. I believe that the analogy of the "nine-dots puzzle" is very helpful in this regard, and that it can remind us to always be sensitive to the possibility that the way we are interpreting events or the relationship between data-points might be completely mistaken and in need of serious revision.

Of course, I also think that spending as much time as possible looking at the stars and identifying constellations will help anyone to become better and better at "connecting the dots"!

Star Myths of the World on Alchemy with John Gibbons!

Much gratitude and appreciation to DJ John Gibbons and the team at Alchemy for having me over for a most enjoyable conversation.

Here is the link you can follow in order to listen online, download the file for listening on a mobile device, share the podcast with others directly or through various social media platforms, subscribe to the Alchemy podcasts, and post any feedback from the show.

You may also wish to consider supporting the show using links available on the main Alchemy page -- I definitely believe that supporting independent media such as your favorite podcasters is a very valuable endeavor, enabling independent voices to bring conversations such as this one to you and to others.

I think you'll agree that John's insightful questions and familiarity with the subject led to some valuable directions and brought out some new perspectives and exchanges during our talk. 

Of course, the fact that he is an accomplished and well-known musician means that we perhaps should not be surprised at his ability to "resonate" with these profound concepts!

I hope you enjoy the show! 

----  ----  ----

Here's a link to an "interview archive" where you can also find a recording of my previous visit to Alchemy, back in September of 2014.

Below are some handy links to a few of the many subjects we touched upon during the course of our conversation:

• Index of Star Myths that I've previously analyzed on this blog, and their probable celestial correspondences.
• Constellation outlines of H. A. Rey and why they are so helpful (and important).
• The esoteric teaching methods of Mr. Miyagi in the original Karate Kid movie.
• The Bhagavad Gita, its celestial foundations, and some aspects of the profound insights it offers into our human condition in this incarnate life.
• The goddess Durga and her important message for each of us (see also here).
• The metaphor of Thomas in the New Testament and in the Gnostic texts (see discussions here, here and here).
• Why divinities can appear in an instant: the inner connection to the Infinite.
• The helpful metaphor from Dr. Darrah Westrup regarding the "unhelpful (sometimes-helpful) office assistant."
• The special wisdom available in the Lord of the Rings (I realized afterwards that I probably "conflated" two different scenes from the movies when mentioning it in this interview, meaning that I kind of blended two scenes into one by accident -- one in which Gandalf comforts Frodo in the Mines of Moria, and one in which Gandalf comforts Pippin on the walls of Gondor before the battle).
• The profound message offered by Dr. Peter Kingsley and his book, In the Dark Places of Wisdom.
• The insights into the meaning of myth offered by Plato through Socrates in the Phaedrus.

12/08/2015

Prophecy is not about the future. Prophets don't talk about the future. What they do is: they talk about the past -- which has been hidden. Things which have happened -- that have been covered over, and no longer clear. That is what the real prophets do: they speak about the past, but the past that has been forgotten. 

-- Peter Kingsley, from a talk in The Elders.

Cited here.

Welcome new visitors from Truth Frequency Radio

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Special thanks to hosts Chris and Sheree Geo of Truth Frequency Radio for having me on their show last night, December 05, 2015.

We covered a range of topics related to the celestial foundations of the world's myths, ancient scriptures, and sacred traditions -- including some more extensive discussion than I have previously published regarding the spiritual message in the story of the inebriation of Noah, pictured above in a painting (oil on canvas) from the early 1600s by Carlo Saraceni (1579 - 1620).

We also went into some extended discussion of the importance of Thomas in the New Testament texts and in Gnostic tradition.

This interview is currently available for online listening or downloading at this link, and for subscribers to their show it will be available for listening or downloading in their show archives indefinitely.

I believe that for all other listeners, it will be available for listening or downloading only so long as it is the most recent interview, after which it enters the archives.

The part of the show containing my conversation with Chris and Sheree begins at about -145:00 (that's "minus one hundred forty-five minutes") on the embedded play bar found at the link above, which looks like this (you can click on this image to go there as well):

To navigate around to different points in time on the show you can simply click anywhere along that blue line with the high-voltage corona discharge resembling a streamer arc between the spark gap of a Tesla coil(which is a form of radio frequency oscillator, and hence highly appropriate for a show entitled "Truth Frequency").

You can also pause the playback at any time by clicking on the triangle inside the blue circle on the left of the play bar, which starts and stops the audio.

Prior to that -104:00 mark in the show, Chris and Sheree discuss various topics of their own. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with everything that anyone else on earth might say, or everything that might be said in that part of the show, but it should be obvious that none of us really ever agrees with anyone else on every single topic, and I believe that we are all here trying to figure out the complex set of data that we encounter as best we can -- I myself have had to change the entire paradigm through which I view the world on more than one occasion, based on new information that I encountered (my first published book, in fact, was written while I still believed that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were intended to be taken literally, which I obviously no longer see as consistent with the overwhelming evidence in the stars).

I'm personally not comfortable with frequent references to a "New World Order," and suspect that the "Old World Order" might in fact be much more of a concern and a subject which requires careful examination and consideration. 

I also do not believe by any means that everyone in the police is corrupt, which appears to be implied in one of statements in an ad during a break. I actually believe that police forces and militaries are necessary, but I absolutely agree that they can be misused and also deceived (the metaphor of the orangutans and the gorillas in the extremely important original Planet of the Apes film from 1968 is very helpful in this regard, in my opinion -- see additional discussion here).

However, I most definitely agree with the sentiment that Chris expresses at around -108:00 in the portion of the show before I came online, in which he says: 

But the only way to overcome, I should say, is to realize the power that we have -- and to realize the power of unity, as a human species. You know, forget about all of the labels; forget about all of the religions -- forget about everything else, and just start seeing each other for just . . . human beings. And I guarantee you -- they won't be able to bring in a New World Order, because we won't be controlled at that point.

Chris and Sheree were very gracious hosts and I am very grateful to them for inviting me onto the show and allowing me to discuss a subject which I believe to be extremely important to all of the above subjects. They offered some of their own very insightful perspectives during our two hours that led the conversation in what I hope you will agree were some interesting and fruitful directions.

I have not had the opportunity to talk with them before but I think it is clear that they are exploring important questions regarding human consciousness, and seeking to elevate awareness and consciousness through their insights and their work -- a cause that I think we can all agree to be of the utmost importance.

The show ended just as I was getting ready to thank them for having me on to their program -- so, in case it was cut off by the closing music, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chris and Sheree for having me on to Truth Frequency Radio.

_/\_

Below is a list of links to things that I have previously written about some of the subjects that we touched on during the conversation (and, as mentioned above, we went a little deeper into some of these subjects than I have previously, during one or two parts of the interview):

• Index of Star Myths and their celestial correspondences.
• Constellation outlines published by H. A. Rey and why they are so important (and helpful).
• The esoteric teaching methods of Mr. Miyagi in the original Karate Kid movie.
• The celestial foundations of the story of Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
• The celestial and zodiacal aspects of the story of the Crossing of the Red Sea.
• More on the "astro-theology" interpretation of the critical figure of Moses, who is related to some extremely central metaphors connected to the celestial figures of Scorpio, Cancer the Crab, the shining column of the Milky Way galaxy, the raising of the Djed column, and the concept of kundalini.
• The metaphor of Thomas in the New Testament and in the Gnostic texts (see discussions here, here and here).
• The Nag Hammadi texts that were buried for centuries at the base of a cliff near a bend in the river Nile in Egypt.
• The evidence that the world's star myths are expressing a view of reality that is essentially shamanic (or that has been labeled as "shamanic" because this view has survived in shamanic cultures, but can actually be shown to be present and active in virtually all the ancient wisdom of humanity).
• The assertion that the Bible itself contains abundant evidence of this same "shamanic worldview."
• The evidence that the person we call Paul may have been expressing a view which can be broadly categorized as both Gnostic and essentially shamanic in nature.
• The evidence that human beings are actually designed to have an awareness of and an internal connection to the invisible, infinite realm -- and that there are an extremely wide variety of techniques and methods for engaging this ability.
• The Bhagavad Gita, its celestial foundations, and some aspects of its important insights into life in this incarnate state.
• The theme of blessing and not cursing, found running across and through so many of the ancient traditions of humanity.

Welcome to all new friends who found this page through the Truth Frequency Radio broadcast or website!

Namaste.

Yudhistira and Krishna and Achilles speak against war

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Yudhistira speaks against war in the Mahabharata

In the Mahabharata of ancient India, the figurative blindness of Dhritarastra (discussed in this previous post) and his unwillingness to confront the ever more-aggressive actions of his sons Duryodhana and  Dushashana eventually cause the blind king to sit passively by and allow those princes to trick their cousins the Pandavas (the five illustrious sons of Pandu) out of their rightful kingdoms, steal all their possessions including their clothes, insult and humiliate their beautiful and virtuous wife Draupadi, and banish them to the wilderness.

At the end of their term of exile, the five Pandavas -- led by the eldest of the five, the spiritual and learned Yudhistira -- begin to gather together their allies, including not only many powerful kings who are shocked at the behavior of Duryodhana and his gang, but also including on the side of the Pandavas the god Krishna.

Alarmed at the approach of the five sons of Pandu, and hoping to buy more time to prepare his forces to meet them in battle, Duryodhana sends the learned sage Sanjaya (who personally is sympathetic to the cause of the Pandavas) to advise them against attacking, saying that they should not enter into war just to gain wealth or kingdoms (ironic, of course, because it is Duryodhana and his friends who are seizing the possessions of others, and not the Pandavas).

Sanjaya delivers his message to the five sons of Pandu. Yudhistira listens carefully and allows Sanjaya to speak everything he has to say. Then Yudhistira says (in Book 5 and section 26):

What words from me, O Sanjaya, hast thou heard, indicative of war, that thou apprehends  war? O sire, peace is preferable to war. [. . .] Why should a man ever go to war? Who is so cursed by the gods that he would select war?

Yudhistira then requests that Sanjaya go back to Duryodhana and suggest that he give back what he has taken by fraud.

Sanjaya then goes further and suggests that Yudhistira is well learned in the Vedas and in all the ways of righteousness, and argues that even if what has been stolen is not returned, Yudhistira and his brothers should not try to take it back.

At this point, Yudhistira turns to Krishna and refers the matter to him. Yudhistira indicates that whatever the Lord Krishna says on this subject, he will happily obey.

"I never disregard what Krishna sayeth," Yudhistira says (translations are from the public-domain translation available on the web here, from Kisari Mohan Ganguli, published between 1883 and 1896).

Krishna speaks against war in the Mahabharata

The Lord Krishna then makes his proclamation on the matter (in Book 5 and section 29). He begins by saying that he desires the good of both sides -- the sons of Pandu and the sons of Dhritarastra (also known as the Kurus) -- and that those who sent Sanjaya should demand nothing less than peace:

I desire, O Sanjaya, that the sons of Pandu may not be ruined; that they may prosper, and attain their wishes. Similarly, I pray for the prosperity of king Dhritarastra whose sons are many. For evermore, O Sanjaya, my desire hath been that I should tell them nothing else than that peace would be acceptable to king Dhritarastra. I also deem it proper for the sons of Pandu. A peaceful disposition of an exceedingly rare character hath been displayed by Pandu's son in this matter.

However, Krishna goes on to say that it is right to use force to stop plunderers, robbers, and those who follow their greed to seize what lawfully belongs to others:

A bad king, however, would not understand this. Growing strong, and inhuman, and becoming a mark for destiny's wrath, he would cast covetous eye on the riches of others. Then comes war, for which purpose came into being weapons, and armor, and bows. Indra invented these contrivances, for putting plunderers to death. Religious merit is acquired by putting robbers to death. 

Please note here a subtle but important point which is definitely stated in the text. Krishna is not condoning war -- he is condoning the stopping of robbers and plunderers. He is not saying it is good for kings to go out and seize things with wars -- he explicitly states that when kings do so, they become no different from robbers and plunderers. At that point they must be rightfully stopped.

Krishna goes on to explain that Sanjaya was present when the sons of Dhritarastra took everything from the sons of Pandu, and humiliated Draupadi. Krishna condemns Dhritarastra for remaining passive instead of restraining the violent and detestable behavior of his sons -- and then he points out that Sanjaya, who is a learned and respected sage, also stood by without saying anything while the sons of Dhritarastra acted as plunderers and robbers and worse.

Krishna thus assigns blame not only to the overbearing and rapacious sons of Dhritarastra, but to those who stood by and said nothing as Duryodhana and Dushashana and their cronies courted disaster by so blatantly and provocatively overstepping the bounds of law and morality:

Vidura alone spoke words of opposition, from a sense of duty -- words conceived in righteousness addressed to that man, Duryodhana, of little sense. Thou didst not, O Sanjaya, then say what law and morality were, but now thou comest to instruct the son of Pandu!

Nevertheless, Krishna says that the sons of Pandu are still waiting, and are as willing to serve Dhritarastra, as his nephews, restored to their proper places, as they are ready to fight. "Let king Dhritarastra now do what may be proper for him to do," Lord Krishna concludes, and then urges Sanjaya to take all that has been said and repeat it faithfully and accurately to the king.

Achilles speaks against war in the Iliad

Interestingly enough, there is a scene at the very start of the Iliad in which an overbearing king, this time Agamemnon who is the leader of all the Argive forces in the campaign against Troy, by pride seizes what does not belong to him. This episode comes about after he is forced to release the daughter of the priest of Apollo, in an incident discussed in the previous post.

Since Agamemnon has to give the daughter of Chryses back (in order to avert the arrows of Apollo that are laying waste to all of the assembled Greek forces), he decides to seize the maiden who has been given to Achilles, so that Agamemnon won't lose face (Achilles being by far the most powerful warrior among the Achaeans, even though they are bound by a treaty to follow Agamemnon).

Of course, it should be stated clearly here that using this episode from the Iliad as an example does not at all mean that I condone the taking of captives in war or the awarding of the maidens that have been captured to the various warriors, as is described in this opening scene from the Iliad. 

However, it is also true that I believe the entire Iliad is based upon a celestial metaphor from start to finish, and that it can be conclusively demonstrated, with abundant evidence, that the Greeks represent the sun going through upper half of the annual cycle of the year, while the Trojans represent the months of the lower half of the year -- and that in fact the exact same thing can be demonstrated for the conflict in the Mahabharata (in which the Pandus represent the upper half of the year and the Kurus the lower months).

Ultimately, I believe that these ancient sacred texts are using inspired metaphors in order to convey spiritual truths which apply equally to every single man and woman who finds himself or herself sojourning between the two horizons of this material realm while incarnate in a physical human form.

Nevertheless, just as the text of the ancient Sanskrit epic Mahabharata takes the opportunity to make clear the hideousness -- and avoidability -- of war itself, in the words of Yudhistira and then of the Lord Krishna, the Iliad also presents us with a speech by Achilles in which he laments that he along with the other warriors has ever had to follow Agamemnon into battle (part of a pact they all made long before, involving a pledge to defend whoever was fortunate enough to win the beautiful Helen as his wife).

Disgusted with Agamemnon, Achilles rages:

Shameless --

armored in shamelessness -- always shrewd with greed!

how could any Argive soldier obey your orders,

freely and gladly sailing for you

or fight your enemies, full force? Not I, no.

It wasn't Trojan spearmen who brought me here to fight.

The Trojans never did me damage, not in the least,

they never stole my cattle or my horses, never

in Phtia where the rich soil breeds strong men

did they lay waste my crops. How could they?

Look at the endless miles that lie between us . . .

shadowy mountain ranges, seas that surge and thunder.

No, you colossal, shameless -- we all followed you,

to please you, to fight for you, to win your honor

back from the Trojans -- Menelaus and you, you dog-face!

What do you care? Nothing. You don't look right or left.

[. . .]

No more now--

back I go to Phthia. Better that way by far,

to journey home in the beaked ships of war.

I have no mind to linger here disgraced,

brimming your cup and piling up your plunder. 

Iliad I. 175- 202. Translation by Professor Robert Fagles.

Conclusion

These ancient epics graphically portray the destructiveness and ruin of war. They condemn greed and unrighteousness. And they feature extended passages in which respected warriors, sages, and even gods and goddesses speak out about the hideousness of war.

In the Mahabharata, Krishna makes very clear that the plundering and rapacity of the Kurus will bring about their own total destruction if left unchecked -- and that he blames not only those who are most actively and aggressively and arrogantly crossing over the boundaries of righteousness, but also those who know better and who stand by passively and silently without condemning it or trying to stop it.

Those who are calling for war today should consider very carefully which side is actually acting as the Kurus and which as the Pandavas -- who is doing the plundering and the violation of boundaries, and who is calling for such violations to stop?

And I also believe that everyone alive in the world today has a responsibility to consider very carefully what Lord Krishna says to Sanjaya, about his own culpability as one who knows the order of the universe and who yet stood by silently as the sons of Dhritarastra flaunted the proper respect for other human beings and invited war and ultimately terrible destruction.

Afterword --

Edwin Starr speaks against war in 1970:

To keep the connection alive between this world . . . and reality

image: Wikimedia commons (link and link to background image).

In Peter Kingsley's newly-released series of lectures entitled The Elders, one of the central messages running through all of the lectures is the assertion that the west has lost its connection to the real world which is behind this material facade, and has thus lost its connection to its ancient set of "original instructions."

The consequences are as obvious as they are tragic.

The consequences are also extremely grave: because, as the ancient myths of humanity make very clear, the invisible world -- the realm of the gods -- is in fact that true fount or origin of all life and blessing in the visible, material world.

Elaborating upon a theme which he returns to in many of his talks, he explains that the role of the prophet or shaman in cultures which have not lost their connection with the sacred realm was not necessarily to "predict the future," (a common misconception) but rather to uncover the often-hidden point in the past which led to a divergence from the pattern given to us from the Other Realm, and which is the source of whatever grievous problems we are now as a result experiencing in the present.

In one of the lectures, he illustrates this concept using the voyage to the realm of Persephone, queen of the underworld (pictured above [possibly], from an ancient sculpture thought to date to about 470 BC), described by the ancient seer Parmeneides (discussed in depth in Dr. Kinglsey's 1999 book, In the Dark Places of Wisdom), and also using a very relevant example from the Iliad:

And if you want to have a very simple example, a very good example, of what a prophet is (many of you are familiar with my books), it is there in Parmeneides' poem, where he goes down into the underworld, he is taken to meet the Goddess, she gives him all of this extraordinary teaching, and then she says, "Take it away -- carry it away. Just speak it on behalf of me. Don't change anything -- don't mess with it. Just speak on behalf of me." That is what prophecy is.

And then this issue about telling the future. Very, very interesting -- because we have one almost definition, in ancient Greek, about what prophecy really is.  It was one of the very rare moments where Aristotle actually had a spark of understanding about something.

Prophecy is not about the future. Prophets don't talk about the future. What they do is: they talk about the past -- which has been hidden. Things which have happened -- that have been covered over, and no longer clear. That is what the real prophets do: they speak about the past, but the past that has been forgotten. 

And you can see this if you look: you can see, say, with Empedocles -- this man I'm so connected with. As a prophet, he tries to point out to people what they have forgotten, what has gone wrong, what is missing -- why they don't function in the world anymore, why there is so much suffering, disease, disharmony, misery: because we've forgotten our divine source. He traces it all back.

And you can see it also at the very beginning of Homer's Iliad, when there is a whole plague. The soldiers are devastated, by sickness and plague. They're suffering; they're dying. And what happens, in this case? They find a prophet, and they ask him what's going wrong. And he says: "Apollo -- these are the arrows of Apollo. He's shot these arrows of plague, into the troops, because you did something wrong, you offended Apollo." And then it all becomes very simple. Because you see, once you know what's wrong, then you can sort it out -- you can make amends. It's very, very precise. That is what prophecy is.

And if you look at this process -- I've just said a little about it -- if you look at this real process of prophecy, you see that this is -- or this used to be -- the corrective element in human life. This is what brought people back into connection with the divine. 

But, Peter Kingsley explains, the west at some point in the very distant past jettisoned the connection with that invisible realm, the real world that is behind this material realm, and the source of all life and all blessing, and deliberately cut off the corrective element of prophecy: the process of going into the other world to find out what is wrong.

Where and when that "break in contact" -- that terrible disconnection from the real process of prophecy -- actually took place is a matter worthy of careful consideration. I would argue that it is one of those "things which have happened" that Peter Kingsley talks about in the quotation above "that have been covered over, and no longer clear." 

I believe that there are a number of such "things from the past which have been covered over" that we urgently need to uncover and deal with if we are going to have a hope of "sorting it out" and "making amends," as Dr. Kingsley puts it in his talk.

I would suggest that the shuttering of Oracle at Delphi and the cessation of the Eleusinian Mysteries, during the reign of the emperor Theodosius is probably an important place to look, in what we today label the fourth century (in AD 390 and AD 392, respectively). 

That was a very decisive and revealing step in the history of literalist Christianity -- in conjunction with the power of the Roman Empire -- which represented the first of a long series of moves to shut down the channels by which certain specially attuned men and women could go directlyto the invisible world to gain insight and affect changes that could be achieved in no other way, and for the benefit of the society.

What began there at Delphi and Eleusis -- the deliberate blockading of the doorways given to humanity, by which we can access the other realm -- would then be repeated over and over, with all the other avenues of connection to the divine world which had been given to other cultures as well. The campaign continued throughout other parts of Europe (where the Druidic and the Celtic and the Norse and the far-northern shamanic traditions of people such as the Sami were systematically stamped out) and then on to other parts of the world, including the Americas, the Pacific, and on into the lands far to the west of the Americas and far to the east of the Mediterranean.

That is the legacy that has brought us to this particular point in history -- a point in history which must be understood in light of that ancient disconnect that took place in the early centuries of the cultures that became what today we call "the west." This is the ancient disconnect which Peter Kingsley argues is at the heart of the very serious problems we see around us right now.

I would humbly suggest that a part of the solution is the very solid and very abundant evidence that can now be shown which proves quite beyond a reasonable doubt the scriptures of the Bible are built  upon the very same system of celestial metaphor which is found in virtually every other culture on earth.  

This is evidence which proves, in other words, that the very scriptures that the literalists have been using as a justification for shutting down the channels of communication with the invisible realm are in fact teaching the very same worldview that is taught by the myths of ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, ancient Scandinavia, ancient Gaul, ancient Ireland, ancient Sumer, ancient Babylon, ancient Persia, ancient China, ancient India, ancient Japan, and preserved in the sacred traditions of the cultures of Africa, Australia, the Americas, the Pacific, and the vast steppes and plains and forests and deserts of Asia.

As the vignette Peter Kingsley offers from the Iliad makes very clear, the ancients understood that when the invisible realm is disregarded or (even worse) disrespected, the results are inevitably catastrophic. If the infinite realm -- the realm of the gods, the "seed realm," the realm of pure potentiality -- is in fact the fount or source of everything which manifests itself here in the material realm, then it is the source of life and vitality and health and blessing. 

Thus, when Agamemnon chooses to disregard the order of the universe by insulting and disrespecting the priest of Apollo (and, in doing so, disrespecting Apollo himself), the Achaeans assembled under the temporary command of Agamemnon are visited with plague and death by the Sun God (the destruction of health, and the destruction of life).

As Peter Kingsley also points out in the quotation cited above, the Achaeans cannot by themselves figure out how to stop this deadly problem. The answer cannot be found in the material world alone. 

But, they know what to do: they summon Calchas, whom the poem calls "the clearest by far of all the seers who scan the flight of birds" (I. 80-81). 

Calchas is, in fact, a follower of Apollo -- and Calchas brings back the answer from the divine realm: "The god's enraged because Agamemnon spurned his priest, and refused to free his daughter, he refused the ransom" (I. 111-12, both quotations from the superlative translation of Professor Robert Fagles).

It is worth noting that this example of prophecy is not a matter of "trying to have success in battle" (the entire text of the Iliad indicates that war itself is an aberration, even an abomination) -- the issue at hand is one of life itself, a question of survival.

If the source of the problem, located in the realm of the gods, is not understood and addressed, then the entire culture is in very real danger of being completely wiped out.

This matter that Peter Kingsley is bringing to our attention is a matter of life and death.

That is why he says, at a different point in the very valuable lecture series linked above, regarding this very specific definition of the prophetic tradition (which I would argue has much in common with what is also referred to as the very broad "shamanic tradition," since it was in the often geographically-distant shamanic cultures that this prophetic tradition escaped the tender mercies of the "western cultures" for the longest, even into recent centuries and in some places into the present day):

Prophecy -- prophetic tradition -- is life. And if you don't understand, or I don't understand, what prophetic tradition really is, we don't understand what life is. We have a concept of what life is, but we do not understand what life really is. If you understand what life is, you understand prophetic tradition. If you understand prophetic tradition, you understand what life is. And you realize, that all of human existence hangs from the thread of prophecy. Because the prophets are those who keep the connection alive between this world and reality.

I believe that Peter Kingsley is absolutely right about the central importance of the connection between this material world and the real world that is behind this one -- and that he is absolutely right that the central problem which absolutely must be addressed in the west is the covering over of history: the history of that very disconnect, and its unaddressed consequences.

The invisible kraken: Evidence that the earth is not flat

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

My new book, Star Myths of the World, and how to interpret them: Volume One, is the first installment in a series designed to provide conclusive evidence that virtually all of the myths, scriptures, and sacred traditions from around the world -- from the myths of ancient Greece, Sumer, and Egypt to those of China, Australia, and Africa, to virtually every episode recorded in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible -- are built upon a common system of celestial metaphor.

This is extremely important information for many reasons. When we understand this system of celestial metaphor, then we can use that understanding to plainly see unmistakable evidence that the ancient wisdom given to the cultures that eventually became western Europe was originally intended to convey the same fundamental message as that given to all the other cultures of the world. 

It is a message that involves what can be called a shamanic worldview, in which the entire material universe is perceived at every point to be connected to and interpenetrated by the invisible realm, the spirit world: the realm of the gods.

The Star Myths of the world use the motions of the constellations and planets, and the cycles of the sun and the moon and the longer cycles involving planetary conjunctions and orbits and even the awe-inspiring action of precession, as a way of conveying to us the importance of this invisible realm, and our ability to travel there, and to make contact with the divine realm -- because we are actually already in contact with it all the time, as is everything else in the universe.

And, if we are actually all connected to the invisible realm, then that means that we are all in some way connected to one another, and dependent upon one another, as well as connected to all other living things and indeed to every rock and star and molecule in the universe -- and interdependent upon their well being for our own. If we are all actually connected to and bound together by the same invisible spirit realm, then damage that we do to a rain forest or a river or a mountain or even an asteroid has an impact on every other thing in the material realm, and on every other being, and on the welfare of all of them.

It is pretty clear that this ancient wisdom was interrupted at some point in the distant past in "the west," and the repercussions are still being felt to this day. 

The good news is that, although the damage that has resulted from this loss has been enormous, and ongoing, and even accelerating, the invisible realm itself has not gone away (if it had, then there would be no more life on earth, since it is out of the infinite realm that the plants and trees unfold into this material world, and animals and people receive the spirit by which they move and act). And, the ancient texts and myths are still there, telling forth their message about the importance of the sacred realm, our constant dependence upon it and thus our interdependence with the rest of the universe and with all other living beings in it, and the ways given to humanity to make contact with and even journey to that realm during this life, in order to learn things there and effect changes there which cannot be learned or effected in any other way. 

If the loss of this knowledge was a central factor setting the west down a wrong path (a wrong path with global consequences), then it stands to reason that the solution (if one is possible) will entail regaining contact with an understanding that was anciently lost.

I believe that this is an incredibly important message.

I am by no means the only person trying to make this message (or some variation of it) more widely known (in fact, there are many, many others who are bringing this general message to far more people than I reach, many of whom have devoted their lives to spreading such knowledge for many decades and who by their actions over time and the consistency of their message and their work have earned a right to speak on a very large stage and who reach thousands of people every time they give a talk).

However, even as I am making what I believe to be a very important case about the celestial foundation underlying the different mythologies and sacred traditions of humanity around the globe, I find that one of the most frequent questions that I am asked (on the web, at least, and especially in the "comments" left on some of the videos that I have made) is some variation on what I think of the "flat earth" idea.

Because I believe that it can be conclusively demonstrated that the myths and scriptures and sacred traditions of the world are all encoding the motions of the constellations and the cycles of the sun, moon, and stars (as well as longer cycles, including the precessional cycle), this question is actually (in one sense) somewhat relevant to my work.

However, I believe the entire discussion to be a pretty major distraction to the extremely important subjects discussed above. We're talking about evidence that shows all the world's sacred traditions (including the stories in the Bible) are based on the stars, and now we have to stop and haggle over the evidence that the earth is a globe that rotates on its axis once per day, and  goes around the sun once per year?

This is not really an argument that I want to get into at all. I personally believe that the fact of the earth's sphericity and the fact that it orbits around the sun (and not vice versa) is extremely well established. 

I'm actually a little suspicious of the motives of those who insist that this point is not yet proven, and insist on forcing the discussion onto this subject all the time. I actually wonder how many of those who argue for a flat earth truly believe such an argument, and how many might be dragging the debate into that quicksand for other reasons, whether just for the sheer fun of being contrary and picking arguments, or for some other motive.

However, assuming that some people may actually entertain honest doubts about this matter, I will list just a few of what I believe to be many reasons to believe that the earth is a globe that rotates on its axis and orbits the sun (and has an axial tilt which precesses). 

I realize that critics might be able to come up with some way of explaining each of the points offered below with a hypothetical model other than a spherical earth orbiting the sun along with other planets in the solar system, but it is actually possible to do that with virtually any point (one ancient name for this kind of pseudo-argument was sophistry). 

If Sherlock Holmes presents you with extensive evidence which proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that Mr. J murdered Mr. Y, a sophist could still come up and ask him, "Even with all this evidence, how do you know that it was Mr. J and not a grizzly bear that did it? Can you actually prove that it wasn't a grizzly bear?" If Holmes points out that no bears had been reported by any witnesses, and in fact no bears lived in the area, and that in fact no zoo in the area even had any bears in captivity either, the sophist could still say, "But can you prove that it wasn't a grizzly bear?" If Holmes then shows that the victim was strangled and not bitten, the sophist could then say, "Then how do you know it wasn't a kraken? Can you prove it wasn't?" 

Such tactics could be extended indefinitely: if Holmes shows that nobody had reported anything like a kraken in the area, the sophist might knowingly say, "A ha -- but how do you know it wasn't an invisible kraken?"

I am personally not that interested in debating the possibility of an invisible kraken. 

I would be suspicious of anyone who wanted to persistently steer the argument off in that direction. I assume that there are some people who have honestly been convinced of the possibility of a flat earth, and who will be interested in honestly considering the arguments offered below giving my reasons why I am not at all convinced of that possibility.

The fact that I do not want to go there should not at all lead anyone to the conclusion that I myself am trying to cover up the existence of krakens or that I am part of some group trying to keep the knowledge of the existence of krakens from the general public. 

I will present some evidence below which convinces me that the earth is a sphere and goes around the sun, which I hope will be helpful to anyone who is honestly doubting that this is the case. But in the future I do not plan to get into any extended discussions on the subject, just as I wouldn't expect Sherlock Holmes to want to spend hours discussing the hypothetical possibility of an invisible kraken.

1. The whirl of stars around the celestial north pole and the celestial south pole:

Two different whirling points, one counterclockwise and one clockwise.

The elevation of the whirling points changes as you go further north or further south.

You cannot see both at once, but you can see the appropriate one based on whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere.

The rotation of the earth towards the east causes the stars to appear to move from the east to the west. If you were to lie down at the north pole and look up, you would see the stars appearing to move in a circle around the point directly overhead (ninety degrees up from the ground) -- the celestial north pole. Anyone in the northern hemisphere can also see the stars move in a circle around the celestial north pole, but as we move further south, the point that they all appear to circle around gets lower in the sky (but always towards the north). 

After we cross the equator into the southern hemisphere, however, we can no longer see the whirl of stars around the celestial north pole: instead we can see a different whirl, around the celestial south pole. The further south we go (the closer to the earth's south pole), the higher this whirl will be in the sky, but always towards the south. 

This fact of the two different whirls of stars in the sky is perfectly easy to explain if the earth is a globe. 

The fact that the height that the point around which the sky appears to whirl will change as we go further north or further south is also exactly what we would expect if the earth is a globe.

It is very difficult to explain why there are two different points around which the sky appears to whirl, if we are on a flat earth that does not rotate. It is very difficult to explain why the north celestial pole is higher in the sky the further north one goes in the northern hemisphere, and lower in the sky the further south one goes, if we are not on a globe.

I have personally seen the south celestial pole and the stars turning around it when I was in New Zealand, and I have personally seen the north celestial pole and the stars turning around it from many different latitudes in the northern hemisphere. This is not hearsay evidence that I am talking about. 

(I have not personally observed these two whirls from the equator itself, but from there you would be able to see the "upper half" of both of them, one if you looked towards the north pole, and the other if you looked towards the south pole -- if you doubt this, you can verify it for yourself by going to the equator and doing some observing). 

There are also many photographs on the web of the stars whirling around the north celestial pole, taken from various latitudes in the northern hemisphere, and many photographs of the stars whirling around the south celestial pole, taken from various latitudes in the southern hemisphere.

At the top of this post is an image, taken from a point in the southern hemisphere (in Chile), showing stars circling the south celestial pole. Below is another image, taken from a point in the northern hemisphere (in Arizona), showing stars circling the north celestial pole:

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Now, before someone tries to come up with some flat-earth explanation of how we could have two different points around which the stars rotate, one only visible from north of the equator and the other only visible from south of the equator, and how the point around which the sky appears to turn will be seen to be higher or lower in the sky based on your latitude (all of which makes perfect sense if we are on a globe that is rotating on its axis, but which requires some extremely convoluted contortions to try to explain from the perspective of a flat earth), there is one other aspect of this phenomenon which is difficult to explain for a flat-earth theory but makes perfect sense from the perspective of the globe-and-axis theory, and that is the fact that the stars rotate around the north celestial pole in a counter-clockwise fashion, and the south celestial pole in a clockwise fashion.

Why would this be? It makes perfect sense, if we are on a globe rotating towards the east. As the ball we are standing on spins towards the east, it causes objects in the sky to appear to speed towards the west. This happens to the sun once per day: it "rises" in the east and moves across the sky towards the west, then sinks down below the western horizon as a function of the fact that the ball we are standing on kept spinning towards the east, bringing the curve of the western horizon in between us (where we are standing) and the sinking sun. 

The reason the sun (and all the other stars) appear to move east to west is the same reason a billboard or a barn or a tree seen from the window of a speeding car or train appears to move towards the rear of the car or train: you are rushing forwards, so things outside appear to rush backwards. As we spin east, things in the sky appear to move west: the earth is spinning towards the east, so objects in the sky (including the sun, planets, and stars) all appear to move from the east to the west.

If we are standing in the northern hemisphere and look towards the north, the stars will be rotating east to west (just as they do everywhere else on a ball that is spinning towards the east). But as we look north, this will cause them to rotate around the central north celestial pole in a counter-clockwise direction (because if we are in the northern hemisphere facing the north pole, east is to our right, and stars rising in the east will arc over us from right to left as we face north, and those close to the north pole will go around from right to left also in a counter-clockwise fashion around the central point, such that a star at the three o'clock position will rotate up to twelve o'clock before continuing down to nine o'clock and eventually down to six o'clock and back around to three o'clock). 

Below is a video from the northern hemisphere (in northern Spain) of the stars going around the central point in a counter-clockwise direction:

There are many other such videos available on the web (and if you are in the northern hemisphere you can make one for yourself, or just observe it happening with the naked eye).

However, if we are in the southern hemisphere and we look towards the south pole and watch the stars rotating around the south celestial pole in the sky, they will move in the opposite direction: clockwise around the central point. Why is that?

Well, the stars are still moving from east to west, just as they do everywhere else on a globe that spins eastwards (the sun rises in the east for people in the southern hemisphere too, just as it does in the northern hemisphere). But, when we look to the south celestial pole, we are facing south, and now east is to the left of us and west is to the right, and stars will be rising from our left and going towards our right. Those close to the central point around which all the stars in the sky appear to turn (the south celestial pole, above earth's south pole) will go from left to right as they go over the central hub: they will go clockwise. A star which begins at nine o'clock will go up to twelve o'clock and then on down to three o'clock and so on.

Below is another video, this one from the southern hemisphere, showing all the stars going around the south celestial pole in a clockwise fashion -- just the opposite of the way they whirl around the northern hub:

The above discussion is, in my opinion, already conclusive evidence that we live on a spherical planet which turns on its axis once per day in a rotation towards the west. This model explains perfectly all the phenomena shown and discussed above. A flat-earth model has a very hard time explaining all the above evidence (although someone using the "what about invisible krakens" method of sophistical argument could probably do it -- I just have my doubts whether they themselves would actually believe it).

2. There are stars that not visible to observers in some latitudes.

Some stars are too far south to be visible from northern latitudes, but are obscured by the horizon. But as you go further south they come into view -- rising above the southern horizon, even if only just barely. As you go further and further south, they will arc at a higher and higher altitude in the sky.

No need to spend too much time on this one, but it is very difficult to account for from a flat-earth perspective, and perfectly understandable if the earth is a sphere and space extends in all directions, with stars in all directions in space. If we are on a ball and space is all around us, then some stars will not be visible to observers on the "top half" of the ball, unless those observers move "down" the ball towards the equator line or even cross down into the "lower half" of the ball.

Observers in the northern hemisphere cannot see the constellation Crux (the Cross) unless they are pretty far south -- that's why it is popularly known as the Southern Cross. I myself never saw this constellation until I traveled to New Zealand.

Even Fomalhaut is pretty difficult to see from northerly latitudes in the northern hemisphere, but the further south on the globe you travel, the easier it will be to see it because it will "clear" the southern horizon with a higher and higher arc as you travel further and further south.

This makes sense if we are on a sphere. It does not make much sense if the earth is flat.

You might find a video that I made a long time ago, using a metaphor that I call "the orbit in the dining room," to be helpful for imagining the way that we see the stars in space from the perspective of our location on a globe: there are stars on all the "walls" as well as on the ceiling and floor, but if we're on the upper half of the ball we can see the stars on the ceiling but not the floor, and we can see stars on the walls but only those on the "upper half" of the walls -- the further "down" the ball we go, the further down the "wall" will come into view.

3. Constellations look "upside down" in the southern hemisphere, compared to their orientation in the northern hemisphere.

This is another point that is very damaging to the flat earth model, but makes perfect sense if the earth is a globe. When you travel to the southern hemisphere, if you have lived in the northern hemisphere all your life, you will soon notice that all the constellations are "upside down" to the way you are used to seeing them (if you are used to looking at the constellations, that is).

This phenomenon is perfectly understandable if we are on a globe. I'm not sure why the sky would seem to "flip" as we get to the outer edges of a supposed "flat earth" in which "south" is supposedly "towards the edges" and north is in the center.

But, now imagine the earth as a globe (which I am quite certain that it is). If you imagine yourself standing at the north pole and looking at the outline of the constellation Orion (located near the ecliptic plane, "out from the equator" in the sky, so to speak), and then imagine that you travel down to the south pole and look out at the same constellation of Orion, you will immediately understand why the constellation looks "upside down" from the south pole, relative to how it looked when you were at the north pole.

This phenomenon is true for points in the southern hemisphere, not just at the south pole itself.

I myself witnessed this when I went to the southern hemisphere (New Zealand and Australia). Orion was the first constellation which I noticed to be "upside down" to my way of seeing him.

4. The angle that the stars, planets, and sun and moon rise up out of the eastern horizon and sink down into the western horizon changes based on your latitude, and can be used for long-distance ocean navigation.

This is the method used by the Wayfinders of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, and it is almost certainly the traditional method used for the successful long-distance ocean-crossing voyages that the people of the different Pacific Island cultures used to cross the vast distances that they crossed.

See this previous post discussing "the greatest navigators our globe has ever seen," as Thor Heyerdahl called the Polynesian peoples who traveled the almost-unimaginable distances from Hawaii to Tahiti to Aotearoa (New Zealand) to Rapa Nui (Easter Island) and to many other distant shores as well.

Some discussion is presented there regarding the reason that in the northern hemisphere, the courses of the stars angles up from the eastern horizon but along an arc closer to the southern horizon, while in the southern hemisphere the courses of the stars angle up from the eastern horizon but along an arc closer to the northern horizon, and why they go along an arc straight up and perpendicular to the horizon as you cross the equator. This discussion is largely based upon the helpful diagrams and discussion found on the actual website of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which has successfully crossed the oceans using the same traditional Wayfinding methods used by their ancestors in previous centuries.

If you take the time to read that entire page as linked, you will see that their method assumes a spherical earth, and that in fact the star courses do what they do and in doing so enable navigation because we are on a spherical earth which rotates on its axis.

I have not actually asked them, but I would be very doubtful that there are any believers in the flat-earth model among the members of the Polynesian Voyaging Society.

There are others who know the science of navigating by true celestial navigation. The excellent book by Thomas Cunliffe entitled Celestial Navigation tells you how it is done using a sextant -- and it also bases all its techniques upon the understanding that the earth to be a globe.

5. Objects that travel through the air for long distances have to take into account the rotation of the earth.

This is true for airplanes.

It is also true for artillery shells that travel very long distances, and other military munitions.

I am not an airline pilot, but I have a very good friend who is an airline pilot. There are a very large number of airline pilots in the world. I do not believe that they are all "in on" a major conspiracy to hide from us the fact that the earth is really flat.

In order to accurately take off on one point and travel a very far distance to land where you want to land, you have to account for the fact that the earth actually rotates on its axis.

I was in the military for many years. I graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point, which was founded in 1802 in part to provide the level of mathematical and engineering knowledge necessary to fling artillery shells from one point on the surface of the earth to another, and also to be able to construct bridges that would not collapse: the young nation needed a school to teach such subjects, and did not have one until the Academy was founded (most of the universities such as Harvard and Yale were originally founded as theological schools).

Although I was not commissioned as an artillery officer, I did have to learn quite a bit about the science of flinging artillery shells from one point on earth's surface to another and having them land where you want them to land (I remember hearing stories while at West Point about artillery shells being sent by accident into the vicinity of the Bear Mountain Bridge, which is not far from the training areas and also not far from where Jack Kerouac started the journey he recorded in On the Road; I have no idea whether that story about shells accidentally landing near Bear Mountain Bridge is true or not, but I suspect that it could have been: the stories were passed on to us to emphasize the importance of doing the calculations properly and carefully, with "attention to detail," and the consequences that could happen if we did not).

In order to send artillery shells (or any other military munition) long distances with accuracy, you have to account for the rotation of the earth. This can be verified by looking at any number of artillery manuals that have been published through the years. Older manuals (and even some of the newer ones) have firing tables that help you to make the calculations that account for the rotation of the earth.

It does not make any sense to argue that these calculations are just introduced in there to keep us from knowing that the earth really doesn't rotate at all. If the earth did not rotate, then accounting for rotation that did not exist would cause artillery shells to land in places that they were not supposed to land.

I believe that some proponents of a flat, non-rotating earth will try to explain this away by resorting to an invisible fluid or element known as "ether." I believe that this is basically the same as resorting to an invisible kraken. I don't care to try to prove that there is no such thing as ether -- it may be very difficult to prove the non-existence of ether (and also of invisible krakens). But since the rotation of the earth explains the need for these artillery calculations (and because there is extensive evidence of other forms that shows we are on a spherical and rotating earth -- see all the points above -- I don't believe I or anyone else need engage in a debate over the existence or non-existence of a hypothetical substance called "ether").

For one example of an artillery manual which discusses the need to make calculations to account for the rotation of the earth, see USMC Field Manual 6-40, and page 7-19 and following (where you will be directed to "Table H," which gives you the calculations needed to account for the rotation of the earth).

Army manuals for field artillery are also numbered 6-40: you can find many of them on the internet which discuss the importance of accounting for earth's rotation. Some of those which are available on the web go back to 1944 or 1945 (well before the founding of NASA, an organization which some flat-earth adherents blame for much of the supposed disinformation about the shape of the earth in modern times).

6. The Coriolis Effect caused by the laws of physics related to inertia and angular momentum cause large bodies of air and water to rotate in generally predictable patterns, which differ on either side of the equator.

This is getting a little technical, but those interested can read about it in many different places on the web or in textbooks.

One thing that is caused by the Coriolis effect is the pattern of air currents and the direction that they swirl on our planet. They generally swirl counterclockwise off the equator to the north, and clockwise off the equator to the south.

You can see this in Coriolis-induced action in images of hurricanes.

Hurricanes in the northern hemisphere generally rotate counter-clockwise around their central eye, and those in the southern hemisphere generally rotate the other way (clockwise).

Below is an image of a hurricane in the northern hemisphere:

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Note that the "arms" of the swirl from the left side of the circle (nine o'clock) open "up and to the right" (look from nine o'clock up towards the twelve o'clock of the storm to see this). Another way to think about it is that the storm appears from above to be swirling inward towards the center in a counter-clockwise direction.

Now look at the image below of a hurricane in the southern hemisphere:

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

It should be readily apparent that this hurricane is swirling in the opposite direction from the hurricane shown in the image above it. This one appears to swirl towards the center in a clockwise direction, and the arms appear to open "up and to the left" when seen from the right side of the storm. To see this, look at the six o'clock position and trace up towards the three o'clock.

It is very difficult to explain why hurricanes would swirl in one direction on the north side of an equator line on a flat earth and in completely the opposite direction on the other side of the same equator line (an equator line doesn't really even make sense on a flat earth, but let's assume that there is such a line, and many flat-earth proponents talk about one).

However, it does make sense on a rotating sphere, in which the Coriolis effect is present (and completely explainable based on the laws of physics).

I don't know if any flat earth theorists try to explain this phenomenon away. They certainly cannot argue that hurricanes are some kind of a hoax. I personally went to Florida to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and have witnessed the devastation they cause first hand.

I was also in southern China during a typhoon once.

7. The Foucault Pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth.

I was fascinated by the Foucault Pendulum at the old Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco when I was young. It is still in operation, but has now moved to the new museum location.

The way that a pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth is somewhat technical, but fascinating.

It can actually show you your latitude on earth's surface, if you know the principles and can do some trigonometry.

The explanation for Foucault's Pendulum and the rotation of the earth is well explained in the videos shown below (far better than I could explain it, and demonstrated visually far more easily than it can be explained in long paragraphs of verbiage):

First video (gives a decent explanation of what happens -- but the third video below is really the best for visualizing why ):

Second video (probably the best for seeing how it works in action, because it uses an ink marker -- also, this one is outstanding because it explains how to determine your latitude with some degree of accuracy using a pendulum):

Third video (in French but visually the best one on the web that I've found, and because it is in French it probably also pronounces "Foucault" most properly):

Once again, I believe some advocates of a flat earth try to explain away this pendulum phenomenon by relying upon "ether" or some other complicated or convoluted argument to try to say that it isn't really the earth that is rotating but rather then pendulum. It is difficult to understand why the "ether" would not rotate at an arbitrary line called the "equator" on a flat earth, however, just as it is difficult to understand why hurricanes would rotate in opposite ways on either side of such an arbitrary line on a flat earth. 

All of the actions of a Foucault Pendulum, however, are well explained by a spherical earth rotating on its axis.

8. The very existence of time zones should prove that we are on a rotating sphere.

Some parts of earth are in night when others are in day.

This provides a pretty simple and obvious argument for a spherical earth, and one which requires some pretty strange arguments from the flat-earth proponents in order to try to explain for a flat earth.

When I was in China, I could Skype with my family in California, but when it was night for me it was day for them.

Why would the sun above a flat earth illuminate (and heat) one area called "day" but not another area (on a flat plane) where it was night? (The exact same argument, could be made regarding solstices and seasons, and the fact of longer days in one half of the earth while the other half is having shorter days, which is caused by the tilt of the earth and discussed in countless previous posts, including this one from 2011).

Flat earth theorists, I believe, argue that the sun is kind of like "floodlights" that only beam down in a fairly tight cone of light. This doesn't make much sense, if the sun is a ball.

That leads us to the next point:

9. The moon and the visible planets are clearly spherical.

Why would we argue that the earth is flat, if we can see that Mercury, Venus, the moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all spherical? 

You can actually see this with a telescope, if not with the naked eye (you can pretty much see that the moon is a sphere with your naked eye.

10. The motions of the planets on their courses makes sense if earth and the planets are orbiting the sun.

Otherwise, you have to introduce complicated concepts such as "epicycles" to try to explain retrograde motion, etc.

The concept of "retrograde motion" (which you can observe for yourself, on successive nights when one of the visible planets is in retrograde) is something that I discussed at some length in a previous post, back in 2012 during a retrograde period for Mars. Earth was "passing up" Mars on our "inside track" as we orbit the sun, making it look (for a short time) that Mars was moving the opposite direction from earth in its orbit around the sun (Mars and the other visible planets orbit in the same direction around the sun that we do).

11. The monthly cycle of the moon makes perfect sense if it orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun.

The moon is full when it is exactly opposite the earth from the sun, and highest in the sky at midnight.

The moon is new (and invisible) when it is exactly between earth and the sun, and highest in the sky at noon.

Both of the above make perfect sense if the moon orbits the earth. I discuss these cycles, which are not (unfortunately) widely understood by the general public unless they take the time to learn about it (it is not generally taught in school, at least in my personal experience), in a blog post here from several years ago. You can find other posts in which I discuss the cycles further by searching for "new moon" in the internal blog search window.

The moon is a thin crescent when it is only a few days old (after new moon), and follows closely behind the sun (at this time in its cycle, it can be seen just after the sun goes down, following "hard after" the sun). This also makes sense if the earth is a rotating sphere and the moon is the earth's satellite. 

All of the moon's cycles, and its relative position to the sun and distance "behind" or "ahead" of the sun, make perfect sense if it orbits earth and earth rotates while orbiting the sun.

To explain all of this using the flat earth ideology would require some contortions.

12. Solar and lunar eclipses make sense for the same reasons described above for the phases of the moon.

Solar eclipses take place when the moon passes between earth and the sun, and thus can only happen on a point of new moon.

Lunar eclipses take place when the earth is between the sun and the moon, and thus can only happen at a time of full moon.

These phenomena are well explained by the model of the earth orbiting the sun, and the moon orbiting the earth. The moon orbits on a plane that is "tilted" relative to the plane of earth's orbit around the sun, and thus we do not have a solar or lunar eclipse at every single new moon or full moon (this is discussed in previous posts about the "lunar nodes").

Once again, explaining why this happens the way it does from a flat earth model causes some contortions (this pattern is typical of an incorrect model: a correct theory will usually clear up a whole lot of evidence that the incorrect theory had to tie itself in knots to try to explain). 

An additional problem for the flat earth theorist is the fact that during a lunar eclipse, it is the shadow of the earth that creeps slowly across the face of the moon as earth moves between sun and the moon. The edge of this shadow can clearly be seen to be curved, indicating that earth is a sphere (as do so many of the other pieces of evidence offered above).

This creates a king-sized problem for flat earth theories.

I have even read that some flat earth theorists posit the existence of another moon-like body that is throwing its shadow across the moon during a lunar eclipse, to alleviate the problem caused by the curved shadow that earth projects on the surface of the moon and that is clearly visible to the casual observer. Of course, this "hypothetical moon" that occasionally eclipses our moon is invisible and has never been seen, but it "must" be there, according to some theorists (apparently -- I myself have never spoken to anyone who actually believes such a theory, and I actually have difficulty believing that anyone honestly believes it themselves).

>>>>>>>>>>

These are just some of countless other pieces of evidence which could be offered (and I'm not even a physicist). I haven't even gone into the problem of GPS location, which is now such a common fact of life with smartphone users that they take it for granted -- but I personally remember the first time our unit in the 82nd Airborne Division was issued portable GPS devices (only six for the entire company of over a hundred paratroopers, and they were huge -- about the size of a flat brick), and I remember sitting out in the field and waiting to get "three satellites" (you couldn't accurately get your location if you only had two satellites or one satellite in communication with your device).

Nor have I touched the very complex (but perfectly understandable given a rotating earth going around a massive sun and orbited by a less-massive moon) mechanism of the ocean tides(which everyone who surfs regularly must keep an eye on), or the even more awe-inspiring mechanism of the precession of the equinoxes (which is almost certainly a function of the principle of the conservation of angular momentum, the fact of the equatorial bulge, and the resulting motion of the axis around which the earth rotates in the same way that a gyroscope or even a spinning bicycle tire suspended from a string will precess).

All of the above evidence convinces me that the flat-earth argument is incorrect -- and also causes me to wonder about the motives of at least some of those who spend a lot of time trying to get people to argue about it.

Those, at least, are my reasons. And that is about as much as I wish to say on this subject.

Please do not contact me with counter-arguments to the above evidence, or with complicated and purely hypothetical models that could possibly account for one or more of them. As I said before, I believe that such arguments are akin to trying to engage Sherlock Holmes in a debate over the possibility of an invisible kraken -- and such debates can be extended indefinitely by a really aggressive and contrarian debater who enjoys arguing for the sake of argument -- but they distract from what I believe to be the real discussion at hand.

image: Wikimedia commons (link).