What evidence do flat earthers cite for rejecting the globe model?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Flat-Earth adherents reject the globe model by pointing to everyday visual experience, selective “experiments,” and a package of conspiracy claims that dismiss space imagery and institutional authority; their core evidence is a mix of sensory intuition, reinterpretations of old Zetetic experiments, and claims that flights or photos are faked [1] [2] [3]. Scientific and journalistic observers counter that those appeals fail to account for centuries of astronomy, navigation, and direct space-based measurements, and that belief is reinforced by social and conspiratorial dynamics rather than empirical reproducibility [4] [5] [6].
1. “It looks flat to my eyes”: direct sensory experience as primary evidence
Many flat-Earth promoters begin from the immediate observation that the ground and horizon appear flat from human vantage points and argue that vision and everyday experience trump abstract calculations, framing the globe as counterintuitive and imposed by experts [1] [4]. Psychology and reporting note this reliance on perception—people “see” a flat plane and that subjective experience is often given priority in flat-Earth communities—while scientists point out that optical effects and scale explain why local surfaces look flat even on a large sphere [1] [7].
2. Recycled historical “experiments” and Zetetic claims
Modern flat-Earthers invoke 19th-century zetetic experiments and selective readings of classical observations—such as reinterpretations of Eratosthenes or Rowbotham’s canal-line observations—to argue that curvature has not been empirically demonstrated to their satisfaction [8] [9]. Contemporary flat-Earth media sometimes stage DIY tests—long-range sightlines, laser or gyroscope trials—that proponents claim undermine curvature or rotation, though observers and documentaries show these tests are often poorly controlled or misinterpreted [2].
3. Flight routes, maps and the Antarctic “ice wall” narrative
A recurring claim is that airline routes, polar travel patterns, or the layout of some world maps are inconsistent with a globe and instead fit a disc-like map; some adherents assert Antarctica is an encircling ice wall keeping oceans in, and that flights across the southern hemisphere are misreported or nonexistent [2] [10]. Investigative coverage finds these arguments often hinge on selective data or misunderstanding of flight planning, map projections, and the geography of the southern oceans rather than new, reproducible evidence [2] [7].
4. Denial of photographs and space testimony—everything is a hoax
Flat-Earth communities frequently treat photographic and telemetry evidence from NASA and other agencies as fabricated, arguing a large-scale conspiracy to promote a globe narrative; moon-landing denial is common and images from space are dismissed as CGI or propaganda [6] [3]. Reporters and scientists document that this conspiratorial posture functions as a catch-all: when presented with counter-evidence—satellite imagery, ISS livestreams, geodetic data—adherents often respond by claiming forgery rather than revising the model [6] [5].
5. Alternative physical claims: gravity, light, and “different physics”
Some flat-Earth explanations reject conventional gravity or propose alternative mechanics for buoyancy, atmospheric refraction, and celestial motions to reconcile observations with a flat disc; proponents may claim light behaves differently or that instruments are manipulated [5] [2]. Scientific critiques emphasize these ad hoc mechanisms lack predictive power and cannot coherently reproduce the broad, consistent observations explained by spherical-Earth physics—from orbital mechanics to global navigation—so they remain explanatory patches rather than validated theories [5] [7].
6. Why these “evidences” persist: social and conspiratorial drivers
Scholars and journalists find that the mix of intuitive observation, selective experiments, distrust of authority, and community reinforcement explains why flat-Earth evidence persists despite overwhelming contradictory data; social media amplifies experiments and conspiratorial narratives while creating a strong identity for adherents [4] [6]. Reporting shows the movement’s claims are less a coherent, empirically supported scientific program and more a constellation of reinterpretations and denials that depend on rejecting mainstream institutions and privileging alternative authorities [4] [6].