---

Reader, many banal arguments historically cited in favour of the earth’s alleged sphericity or spheroidicity were categorically debunked in the nineteenth century book titled, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (who wrote under the nom de plume known as “Parallax”).¹

Our focus here will be restricted to Chapter XIV of Rowbotham’s book, and more specifically to the early part of that chapter pertaining to the “disappearance” of the hull of an outward bound vessel before its masthead.²

Rowbotham’s opening paragraph really sets the proper tone for his examination of this matter and is therefore quoted as follows in its entirety:

It has already been proved [elsewhere in Rowbotham’s book] that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. “What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?” is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact than [sic] in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.³

The critical aspect of visual perspective necessary for understanding the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound ship before its masthead is elucidated by Rowbotham as follows:

    The erroneous application of perspective already referred to⁴ is the following:—It is well known that on looking along a row of buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye appears to ascend toward the eye-line; and every thing above the eye appears to descend toward the same eye-line; and an artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the following rule:—draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other lines above and below it, irrespective of their [vertical] distance, as in diagram 75 [see Figure 1 below].⁵

Figure 1. Illustration of height-dependent perspective (adpated from Rowbotham’s untitled Fig. 75).⁶

Rowbotham continues:

    Let \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), and \(\text{C}\), \(\text{D}\), represent two lines parallel but not [vertically] equi-distant from the eye-line \(\text{E}\), \(\text{H}\). To an observer at \(\text{E}\), the vanishing point of \(\text{C}\), \(\text{D}\), and \(\text{E}\), \(\text{H}\), would come together at \(\text{H}\), at an angle of one minute of a degree.⁷ But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that \(\text{H}\) cannot be the vanishing point of \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), because the distance \(\text{E}\), \(\text{A}\), being greater than \(\text{E}\), \(\text{C}\), the angle \(\text{A}\), \(\text{H}\), \(\text{E}\), is also greater than \(\text{C}\), \(\text{H}\), \(\text{E}\)—is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree.⁸ Therefore the line \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line \(\text{E}\), \(\text{H}\), unless it is carried forward to \(\text{W}\).⁹ Hence the line \(\text{A}\), \(\text{W}\), is the true perspective line of \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), forming an angle of one minute at \(\text{W}\), which is the true vanishing point of \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), as \(\text{H}\) is the vanishing point of \(\text{C}\), \(\text{D}\), and \(\text{G}\), \(\text{H}\), because these two lines are equi-distant from the eye-line.
    The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most [vertically] distant from the eye-line [i.e., eye level] must of necessity converge less rapidly [i.e., farther away], and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.¹⁰ [emphasis added]

After applying that principle to several everyday circumstances involving visual perspective,¹¹ Rowbotham finally applies the principle to the argument in question—that of explaining the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound ship before its masthead—stating as follows: [emphasis added]

    The hull of a ship is nearer to the water—the surface on which it moves—than the mast head.
    Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first to disappear.
    This will be seen mathematically in the following diagram, fig. 83.¹²

Figure 2. Disappearance of the brigantine’s hull while its masthead remains visible (adpated from Rowbotham’s untitled Fig. 83).¹³

    The line \(\text{A}\), \(\text{B}\), represents the altitude of the mast head; \(\text{E}\), \(\text{H}\), of the observer, and \(\text{C}\), \(\text{D}\), of the horizontal surface of the sea. By the law of perspective the surface of the water appears to ascend towards the eye-line, meeting it at the point \(\text{H}\), which is the horizon. The ship appears to ascend the inclined plane \(\text{C}\), \(\text{H}\), the hull gradually becoming less until on arriving at the horizon \(\text{H}\) it is apparently so small that its vertical depth subtends an angle, at the eye of the observer, of less than one minute of a degree, and is therefore invisible; whilst the angle subtended by the space between the mast-head and the surface of the water is considerably more than one minute, and therefore although the hull has disappeared in the horizon as the vanishing point, the mast-head is still visible above the horizon. But the vessel continuing to sail, the mast-head gradually descends in the direction of the line \(\text{A}\), \(\text{W}\), until at length it forms the same angle of one minute at the eye of the observer, and then becomes invisible.
    Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact the when the ship’s hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back th hull within the vanishing point, as shown in fig. 84.¹⁴

Figure 3. Reappearance of the brigantine’s hull with higher position of the observer (adpated from Rowbotham’s untitled Fig. 84).¹⁵

Rowbotham summarizes the principle as follows:

    The altitude of the eye-line \(\text{E}\), \(\text{H}\), being greater, the horizon or vanishing point is formed at fig. 2 [i.e., Fig. 84 or Figure 3 in our adaptation] instead of fig. 1 [i.e., Fig. 83 or Figure 2 in our adaptation], as in the previous illustration.
    Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane. [emphasis added] It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.¹⁶

---

Denouement — June 2024

Remarkably, the same debile argument of the disappearing ship’s hull (definitively refuted by Rowbotham in the nineteenth century) is still employed today by popular pseudoscientists masquerading as scientific authorities but otherwise supported by mainstream media platforms in an effort to uphold the heliocentric narrative. But make no mistake about it, reader, whereas the perspective principle expounded by Rowbotham applies proportionately over distances from a few hundred feet (where terrestrial curvature—even if it existed—would be negligible) to distances of tens of miles and beyond, it simply and succinctly demonstrates that the heliocentric emperor has no clothes.

It is essential, reader, to know that Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out the ontological imperative that a planar earth be necessarily stationary (or vice versa) — see our blog post of October 18, 2022 titled, SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS’ COMMENT ON A STATIONARY EARTH BEING NECESSARILY PLANAR. Commercial aviation easily and continuously proves that the earth is stationary — see our web page titled, Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth as well as our blog post of August 6, 2023 titled, ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

— FINIS —

---

1. Parallax, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe — An Experimental Inquiry Into the True Figure of the Earth, Proving It a Plane, Without Orbital or Axial Motion, and the Only Known Material World; Its True Position in the Universe, Comparatively Recent Formation, Present Chemical Condition, and Approaching Destruction by Fire, &c., &c., &c., Illustrations by George Davey, F.Z.S., Third Edition — Revised and Enlarged (London: Day and Son, 1881).↩️

2. Ibid., CHAPTER XIV. EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED “PROOFS” OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.—WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD. Robotham’s examination of the specific matter in question is contained within pp. 201–213 of that chapter.↩️

3. Ibid., p. 201.↩️

4. Ibid., pp. 202–204.↩️

5. Ibid., p. 205.↩️

6. Loc. cit.↩️

7. The vanishing point angle, i.e., the \(\scriptstyle{∠}\; \displaystyle\text{CHE}\) in Figure 1, is greatly exaggerated beyond one minute of a degree to illustrate the concept; the \(\scriptstyle{∠}\; \displaystyle\text{CHE}\) as shown in Figure 1 is about \(4\) degrees.↩️

8. The (again, greatly exaggerated) \(\scriptstyle{∠}\; \displaystyle\text{AHE}\) as shown in Figure 1 is about \(8\) degrees, in this case conceptually representing about two minutes of a degree; hence, point \(\text{H}\), i.e., the vanishing point of line \(\text{CD}\) for an observer at point \(\text{E}\), is NOT at or beyond the vanishing point of line \(\text{AB}\) for an observer at point \(\text{E}\).↩️

9. In other words, point \(\text{W}\) is sufficiently extended beyond point \(\text{H}\) such that for an observer at point \(\text{E}\), the \(\scriptstyle{∠}\; \displaystyle\text{AWE}\) is one minute of one degree; the (again, greatly exaggerated) \(\scriptstyle{∠}\; \displaystyle\text{AWE}\) as shown in Figure 1, is about \(4\) degrees.↩️

10. Ibid., pp. 205–206.↩️

11. Ibid., pp. 206–210. Rowbotham illustrates the principle with linear rows of common place objects such as trees, lamp posts, and flags, the obviously requisite commonality being morphological asymmetry with respect to their vertical axes to clearly illustrate the gradual disappearance of the structures from the ground level up with increasing distance from the observer.↩️

12. Ibid., p. 211.↩️

13. Loc. cit.↩️

14. Ibid., pp. 211–212.↩️

15. Ibid., p. 212.↩️

16. Ibid., pp. 212–213.↩️

---

WEB PAGE CONTROL
REVISION	0
DATE	2024–JUN–08