Coastlines Don’t Lie

Lovely turquoise water and a white sandy beach, a flat horizon.

Written by @rokro11


Here we find an interesting part about our flat and stationary earth.  It has to do with coast lines.  Coast lines are the perimeter around land masses that meet with the water’s edge.  One unique thing about undisturbed water is that it’s always flat and level.  Because of that fundamental attribute of water, another interesting thing about coast lines – where water and land masses meet, is that they all share something in common – sea level.  All seas, oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico are also at sea level because that’s what sea level means.  Sea level is an elevation of 0.


A mountain’s height is measured from sea level.  Sea level is constant on our flat and stationary earth and that’s why it’s used as a bench-mark to measure height above, or below, sea level.  One way to look at our earth to determine if it’s flat is to look at sea level, or the simple basis of all measurements for all elevations.



We can look at the elevation of a mountain such at Mount Fuji with an elevation of 12,389 feet, or Mount Rainier at 14,410 feet, which means the highest points on these mountains are 12,389 feet and 14,410 feet, respectively, above sea level.


If you want to look at valleys, a valley’s depth is measured off the baseline of sea level too. At an elevation of 180 feet below sea level, Calipatria is the lowest elevation city in California. The Dead Sea – bordering Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan – is a salt lake with an elevation 1,412 feet below sea level and the lowest point on dry land.


Although mountains, hills, and valleys, are common land features all over our flat earth, they do nothing to prove the curvature of the earth.

Building from my Coordinates Don’t Lie article, and using coordinate points, the distance from the center of our flat earth to the equator is 6,220 miles.  From the equator to the edge is another 6,220 miles.  Since that accounts for half the distance across the plane, the total of that result would need to be doubled, for a total of 24,880 miles from edge-to-edge of our flat earth.


This brings us back to the enormity and vastness of coast lines at sea level.  There are randomly scattered land mass coast lines that equate to about 15 times that of the width of our flat earth.  This is explained below:

Our flat and stationary earth is 24,880 miles wide.  Let’s examine this by reviewing 20 of the largest coast lines; the area where land meets water is at least 367,676 lineal miles long.  These coast lines are almost 15 times as long as the flat earth is wide.  The coast lines and their length are below:

CountryCoastline (Miles)
8United States12,380
10New Zealand9,404
13United Kingdom7,723



Using our established flat earth map, which shows all the stations, bases, and research facilities around the ice perimeter of our flat earth, I’ve added nearly 367,676 miles of red lines from edge to edge of our flat earth. Those red lines represent the coast lines (sea level of exactly 0) in visual form. Remember, coast lines are where the water meets the land, and where the sea or ocean is flat and level.



Twenty (20) measured coast lines total 367,676 linear miles that are all at sea level.  Not only are all these coast lines at sea level, so are the all the bodies of water that make up 72% of the flat earth’s surface.  This begs the question:  If from edge-to-edge all randomly located coast lines are all flat based on sea level, where is all the earth’s curvature?

There is no curvature of earth.  The curvature is a made-up lie about our flat & stationary earth. On a flat and stationary earth, the proof is right in front of our eyes with the evidence of all the coastlines, in addition to 72% of the earth’s surface which contains flat and level water.

If you have questions or comments regarding coastlines on our flat and stationary earth, please direct them to @rokro11 here or on Twitter.

Published by Stacey McStationary

Christian writer who loves the truth. #BiblicalEarth

34 thoughts on “Coastlines Don’t Lie

  1. Science has logical, evidence-based explanations for the round Earth. All you’re doing here is stating things like “water finds its level”. Large amounts of mass have large amounts of gravity and the gravity of the Earth pulls all the rock & stuff close to the center, which is why it’s round. Water doesn’t “find its level”, it just obeys whatever forces act on it, just like everything else. Since gravity is pulling it to the center of the Earth and there are weak bonds between the water molecules at Earth’s average surface temperature water will change its shape more readily than solid rock for example. Water curves around the Earth but you don’t notice that from sea level (approximately 7 500 kilometers (4 700 miles) from the center of the Earth). The Earth is 12 800 kilometers (8000 miles) in diameter, way too big to see the curve with the naked eye from the surface. You do the math.


  2. Explanations are not proof. What is the factual proof for spin, axis, and tilt? Those are merely fabricated concepts to make the other fabricated concepts for a round spinning ball make sense to people who accept being lied to. Gravity has existed as an unproven concept for over 337 years and it has been relied upon as something real when it has never been proven. You talk about it like it’s something real, doing real things when it’s simply a made-up concept to make ridiculous things work in a contrived model. You also talk about the center of the earth as if that is a real location. It’s not. The most anyone has been below the surface of the earth is no more than 10 miles. You are talking about thousands of miles beyond what anybody has been near like it’s real. If you want to talk about reality, don’t take us into the world of made-believe and fantasy by assigning value and importance to unsubstantiated things.


    1. @rokro111
      I can’t be bothered to find all of the “factual evidence” right now but Galileo Galeli proved gravity centuries ago by observing Jupiter and its moons with a telescope. They orbited the planet. How can you explain that without space & gravity?


      1. Observations of things not related to earth have no resemblance to proof of gravity. Gravity is not an observed thing by looking at things away from earth. Find out what proof is and keep the unrelated hearsay out of it.


      2. 1. Have you based your reply on hundreds of years of research?
        2. Just because you might be far away from me doesn’t mean your body works in a different way. You’re still human. Jupiter is a planet and has gravity like Earth.
        Also just look at a ship going over the horizon with a telescope. There’s your proof that the Earth’s not flat.
        Drop something. There’s your proof of gravity.


  3. There is no nearby jupiter from which to made similar findings so your analogy has been discarded as completely worthless. Jupiter, just like the sun, moon, stars, etc is a thing that cannot be concluded what it is. Nobody knows what any of these things are and if you do, you are guessing and assuming – both of which are worthless endeavors.

    Your eyes and mind are easily fooled when viewing something that is not fully understood. Take the time to find out from a group of physicists who explain how your eyes and mind are being tricked when you think you see curvature. You may see some curvature when it’s actually flat but that is because your eyes and mind are being deceived. If you rely on the incorrect interpretation your eyes see and your mind realizes, that is not proof – that’s self-deception.

    Density differential is what makes things adjust both down AND up. For example, if there is warm air below cooler air, the cool air will push the warm air up at the same time the warm air pushes the cool air down. Additionally, a bubble in the fluid of water will be pushed up by the water and, at the same time, the bubble will push the water down. Lastly, when a helium balloon is released, the fluid of air pushes it up while the helium balloon pushes air downward. Don’t forget about the fluid of air even though you are unable to see it. You’ll have to notice that as one thing is pushed upward, there is another thing that is pushed downward – ALWAYS! There is no exception to this fact because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think there is a situation or example on our flat and stationary earth that does not adhere to the newton’s 1st law, let me know about it so I can explain how the situation or example does adhere to the 1st law.

    The above examples move at the acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s in both the downward and upward direction. The only thing that slows the upward and downward movement is the resistance (friction) the gas/liquid/solid experiences as it moves through the fluid medium it is within while the density differential adjustment is occurring.

    When I explain the reality of what is going on with things that adjust up AND down until equilibrium is attained, I don’t bring up the worthless word of gravity because gravity has been fake since it was made-up over 337 years ago.


  4. No, you can’t conclude what it is unless you use science. Also air is not a fluid it’s a gas. Please research the science before disregarding it. “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” That’s ironic. That saying comes from the work of Isaac Newton, the man who discovered gravity. Also, RESEARCH! That’s not how Newton’s Third Law works.
    Okay, do you know how friction works? I think I do and am interested to see if you do too.
    Also can you please explain how liquids decide what to push down and up? Do they magically go “Oh, look there’s something less dense than me here! Go up please”? Also some very basic things. If the Earth is flat how come I can’t see New York from Australia, and why is it different time of day in different countries at the same time?


    1. Air is a fluid and it follows all the properties of a fluid as can be found in the laws of fluid dynamics. See the Heading, Definition and Properties (of a fluid).

      The principle of the phrase “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” is a law and laws withstand the test of time, scientific experimentation, and falsifiability, The person who may have uttered the law is around for the remainder of his lifetime, while the law remains forever.

      One should not give human attributes to actions of inanimate objects, gasses, and liquids. These things can’t think and they can’t determine direction. The laws of physics and natural laws determine that things more dense will push less dense things up, and less dense things will push more dense things down. You don’t have to know why this occurs – it does and there are no exceptions to it. If you think there is, present an example and I’ll explain that when one things moves up, another thing moves down – every single time (even if you can’t see it happening.)

      The eye is made of a flexible lens. Telescopes and binoculars, for example, are made of fixed lenses. The air has particles (water, pollutants, etc.) in it which hinder vision including perspective limitations through a medium such as air. The vanishing point is utilized in artwork because it’s an actual visual limitation. The unaided human eye can see things at a maximum distance of about 3 miles. The unaided eye looking through water is significantly less.

      I didn’t want to go the details that light appears to bend downward when it is rendered through a medium such as water or air because I’m presenting a lot of information in this response. The more distance between the observer and the object, the more the light appears to bend downward. The light doesn’t bend because light is not a physical thing – it simply appears to bend downward. This is an o.k. article but it’s wrong when it says light changes speed:

      Light is either present, or it is not. It is not a physical thing and it does not travel. The speed of light is a made-up concept and cannot ever be proven to be a physical thing. Only physical things can travel or move.

      You can’t see new york from australia because of the limitations of flexible lenses (eyes), including the assistance of fixed lenses while looking through a medium that appears to bend light downward. To make this more simple to understand, one has to visualize that the distant object is a source of light, most likely due to reflection, and the light perceived by the viewer’s eyes appears to bend downward. The more distance, the more apparent bending occurs.

      I’ve ignored your reference to friction because I don’t want to overload you with too much information because for whatever reason, you missed out on a lot of learning involving fluid dynamics, density, buoyancy, perspective, and visual limitations.


  5. With a powerful enough telescope you would be able to clearly see the spherical Jupiter, with its round moons orbiting it. Even Galileo could see them 400 years ago. Gravity and Earth’s curve can be proven with 400-year-old technology. Also can you explain volcanoes, earthquakes and similar animals & plants appearing on opposite sides of the planet without tectonic plates & continental drift?


    1. 2-D viewing of something will never result in being able to determine a thing’s shape. There is no proof of anything larger than a car that orbits anything. If there was proof, you would be able to direct me to it. The proof must be unedited, continuous, and uninterrupted. Gravity is still a theory with dozens of equations and since no one can agree to which equation should be used, gravity is a worthless concept. Slowly but surely, the real cause of a gas, liquid, or solid’s movement both up AND down is being determined to be density/buoyancy. Density differential between two things is what precipitates the up and down movement. Remember, when one things goes down, another thing goes up. This is a fact and if you want to present something that doesn’t follow this rule, do so and I will explain how there is something moving both up and down even though you don’t see it, or can’t envision it.

      I’m not taking explanation requests for volcanoes, earthquakes, animals/plants. Stay on one subject at a time or you will become more confused by introducing more subjects when you can’t even focus attentively to one subject.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Okay, focusing on your last comment, Each human eye percieves a 2D image, and the brain processes the images from the 2 eyes together to work out distance, giving us depth perception. Try using cutlery or estimating short distances with one eye while still, it’s more difficult than with 2.
    Imagine the amount of information scientists would gather by looking at the sky with telescopes in different wavelengths for centuries? Observing Jupiter with a telescope its moons should appear to circle it and, if the telescope is good enough and there isn’t too much atmospheric distortion, you should see Jupiter’s clouds and its moons passing in front and behind it. Also scientists tested things being dropped in a vacuum. There’s nothing to go up.
    Also how come its different times in different parts of the world when the Sun is definitely higher than the highest mountain?


    1. Focus on the information in my last comment more – until you grasp it.

      I’ve ignored mostly every thing in your post because it’s not worth addressing.

      I can’t reiterate it enough: There is no such thing as a perfect Torr vacuum. If there was, the entire vacuum chamber would implode on itself no matter how strongly it was constructed. In a near-vacuum, there is still a little air. When an object is released in a near-vacuum environment, the object is pushed down by the density differential between the little bit of air and the object. The density differential difference is more in a near-vacuum environment than it is outside a near-vacuum chamber. You can’t see it, but the object is pushing the little bit of air upward.

      What else almost completely removed in a near-vacuum environment is most of the resistance (friction) of the object through the fluid of air as the object is pushed down by the density differential. Don’t forget the little bit of air is pushed up too. Not all of it, just what the object is pushing up as the object gets pushed down. I will point out the object still has all it’s density even though its in a near-vacuum environment and the little bit of air can’t go through the object – it has to go around it. On the contrary, the object can go through the air because the air’s density has been decreased dramatically.

      See the image so you might be able to comprehend why a sun higher than all mountains does not shed light on the entire earth at the same time. Notice in the image at A and B there is light but at C and D there is no light. There are no mountains between the light and C and D but it’s dark at C and D.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. In response to the image of the light on the wall –
    If you were standing at “D” you may very well be in the dark but you would still see the light. The light would have to be hidden out of site so you couldn’t see the light source. Perhaps if the wall was curved and the light traveled parallel to the wall, you would see the light moving away and then disappearing behind the curved wall, the light would create a twilight until the light moved so far away from “D” that the light and souse would completely disappear. I think this curved wall model would create a more accurate image of the sun in relationship to the earth.


    1. I will attempt to reduce your confusion as much as I can. See this image of flat earth. Look at Africa and the little red dot. That dot represents the sun but the red dot is larger than the sun on our flat and stationary earth because I had to make it large enough to see. The sun on our flat earth, if one looks at the entire earth in relation to the sun, is not very large. Accurate scale of things is important.

      Everybody sees a large sun circling a flat earth and they think it’s impossible. Yes, the sun is widely exaggerated on those flat earth maps. The sun is a little over 30 miles wide. Remember, the sun isn’t even as large as the red dot over Africa. Now you might be able to get some perspective.

      Let me be clear, the sun is not a large light bulb that you think you would see forever over a flat plane. The sun is fairly small at slightly over 30 miles wide but you’ve been lead to believe its 843,000 miles wide and 93,000,000 miles away. It’s not. It’s a little over 30 miles wide and not more than 4000 miles high.

      Now I will explain perspective. With this next image, the top of the pole is 50 feet high.

      The viewer has to raise his head slightly at look up to see the top of the pole. The top of the 8th pole from the viewer is about 75% lower than the top of the 1st pole. The viewer has to look straight and lower his eyes just slightly to see the top of the 8th pole. Realize that not only does an object appear lower the further it is from the viewer, it actually is lower from the perspective of the viewer.

      Now envision where the top of the 80th pole is from the perspective of the viewer. The top of it cannot be seen because it is well below the horizon line. It is beyond the viewer’s sight and it is much lower than the viewer’s feet. This is how perspective works.

      Now take that 32 mile sun and let it move from the east side of the united states to the west side of the unites states. It will move into view from the east and move out of view in the west – just like the tops of the poles change in height to the viewer’s perspective.

      Now, if one was as tiny on the earth with a little over 30 mile wide sun, the viewer on the earth would not see the sun from position C or D. Don’t try to think you can comprehend it by visualizing the light near the wall. Do an experiment and get the distances, sizes, and heights accurately determined – including the perspective of the viewer who cannot see things that are below the viewer’s horizon.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Okay, that just raises more questions. You say the sun is small. The earth is 24,000 miles around the equator. It takes 24 hours during the summer solstice for the sun to do a complete cycle. 50% of the earth is in the daylight while 50% of the earth is in darkness. Wouldn’t the sun have to be huge to light up 50% of the earth at the same time. Per my calculations, the sun lights up a 6,000 mile radius. Surly another theory is the sun is huge and distant, the earth takes 24 hours to complete a rotation giving as equal parts daylight and night during the summer solstice. Doesn’t this theory make more sense?


    1. During 2 times of the year, during the equinoxes, the approx. 30 mile wide sun lights the entire earth from center to outer edge over a full 24 hour period. Not all at the same time – over a 24 hour period. This is important to comprehend.

      Your assumption that the sun has to be huge has been discarded as an assumption. I don’t deal with assumptions or vague terms. “Huge” is a vague term. Huge to you is not the same as “huge” is to others.

      Were you are able to disprove George Airy’s experiment that confirmed the aether moves (which contains the sun, moon, and stars) and the earth is stationary? When Airy has proven the earth is stationary and the aether (with the sun within it) moves, how does a theory that requires our verified motionless earth to all of a sudden start spinning make any sense what-so-ever?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. There is a very simple experiment that you can do. Take a globe into a dark room. Shine a spot light onto the globe using the tropics of cancer and Capricorn to get the flashlight in relationship to your season. moving the globe into position to match your current time of the day. Now, look at what part of the globe is in the dusk and dawn, with your smart phone, check the time zone at the cities that are at the edge of darkness. and check which are in the center of the light, this will represent noon. I know that all of the cities will correspond with your flash light in real time. This experiment doesn’t prove that the earth is a globe, but it dose create a bench mark to match up your flat earth map to.

    Now, take your flat earth map laying flat on the floor and shine the flash light down so you can get exactly the same results, this will allow you to see how big you flash light would have to be to get the same amount of light coverage. I don’t own a flat earth map so I haven’t done the experiment myself, But I can see by looking at the large spread of the southern hemisphere that the light experiment will not match up with the globe, but I could be proved wrong.

    This is an easy and cheap experiment, but it will yield real world results.


    1. The sun is more complex (and essentially unknown) than a flashlight. Your experiment doesn’t account for the vast amount of air (and moisture) between the sun and the viewer.

      Globes have been controlling your mind since before you were born. I don’t play with flashlights, toy globes, dark rooms, creating “seasons”, thinking capricorn/cancer are places on earth when both refer to places in the sky corresponding with the sun’s movement, and using flat maps and pretending they are for a ball earth.

      I conduct my experiments in real environments. I’ve ignored the rest of your post because I don’t have time for your confusion.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. What’s your experiment – Sitting on the beach looking at the horizon and telling yourself it looks a little bit flat from this prospective.


  11. I thought my post was kind-of funny – Okay, tell me your experiments that prove the earth is flat. I will perform your experiments before casting further judgement.


  12. I don’t perform experiments to confirm a flat earth. That’s a given. What I attempt to do is try to perform experiments to support the earth is a spinning ball. Nobody, including me, has ever been able to get a ball to spin on its axis, with a tilt while nothing was touching it and it was not touching anything else – just like the alleged spinning ball earth. Scientific experiments need to replicate what they think is happening in order to confirm or deny what they assume. Scientific experiments must be observable, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable. So far, nobody can get the alleged spinning ball with an axis and a tilt to be reproduced under any circumstances. In fact, nobody can even get close to what is assumed.

    So far the spinning ball with an axis and a tilt and touching nothing and nothing touching it has ever been observable, measurable, repeatable, and certainly not even remotely close to having the elements of falsifiable applied to it.

    However, I’ve poured water on flat, and nearly flat ground, and everything happens as we experience in the actual world. The water moves from higher land to lower land. Water when not disturbed is always flat. So what I’ve done is observable, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable with a world that is flat or nearly flat.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Sir – How could you replicate the spinning earth. You would need large globe object (Earth) in a large empty void (Space) in an orbit and rotation around a large central object (The Sun).

    The globe earth would have to be complete with a hot liquid core and a magnetic field. Lucky we have such a model to work with. The Earth in our Solar System.

    You need to debunk the globe earth using other means, you cant possibly claim the earth doesn’t spin because you can’t build a model of it. That would be like saying oxygen doesn’t exist because you can’t make it.


    1. Just spin a ball of any size. You have been programmed to think the stationary earth moves about the sun. You’ve also been programmed to think the stationary earth orbits. There is no proof anything orbits anything, yet you believe that nonsense.

      I’ve ignored the rest of your post since clearly you’ve put no effort into thinking based on your first couple of comments.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Rokro111 – Okay, you ignore my posts so a conversation cant exist? How can learn anything if you ignore everything in that’s stated in a two way conversation?


  15. You stated that no experiment has been done to replicant a spinning ball floating unsupported, thus proving the spinning ball fake.

    Where is the experiment showing a floating bowl?

    I guess your floating earth bowl isn’t held in orbit around the sun, are we just tumbling around in deep space like discarded space junk?


    1. I don’t engage in conversation with people who assume as the basis of their part of the dialog. Let me point out all your assumptions in the few sentences you’ve posted…

      1. You assume the earth is floating. There is no proof what-so-ever the stationary earth floats.
      2. You assume the earth is a bowl. There isn’t even any suggestion it’s a bowl, yet you assume that.
      3. You assume the stationary/flat earth is, or isn’t, in orbit. Orbit is a made-up concept to facilitate the spinning round ball. Orbits have never been proven and cannot be relied upon for anything.
      4. You assume the stationary earth and it’s inhabitants are tumbling. Do you feel yourself tumbling, or the ground upon which you stand to be tumbling? You are assuming this condition despite having nothing even remotely close to a tumbling experience.
      5. You assume there is a place called space. There is no objective and verifiable evidence of space, deep space, shallow space, or any kind of space. Things that are created through speculation and conjecture are meaningless and not worth one second of my time.
      6. You assume things have gotten higher than 25 miles from the surface of our flat and stationary earth. What goes up, always, always comes down – There are no exceptions to this. You mentioned space again, which is an assumption, and the programmed and planted “space junk” has a firm hold on your mind – just as intended.

      I don’t waste my time conversing with people who assume and you’ve created your position based on assumption after assumption. You are better equipped to watch cartoons, read comic books, strap on a virtual reality headset, be in a dream-state coma, watch magicians trick you, and watch fictional movies than to converse with someone such as myself who only relies upon reality, facts, and evidence.

      In your prior post, you mentioned “How can learn anything…” Besides you using a fragmented sentence structure, I have no intention of learning anything from a person who bases all the information he relies upon from assumptions that have been propped up with other assumptions.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. You claim that we are in bowl floating around deep space with no purpose. I am a person of faith. I am deeply offended that you claim that I live in a bowl without purpose. The globe earth explains structure and meaning. How dare you try to take that from me without presenting evidence. Atheists are the course of our modern era. You should be ashamed.


  17. Stacey, (I hope you get this as I have no other means of communicating with you since I left big tech companies)

    rokro11, This guy, like you, seems very sharp and knowledgeable. But he only seems to exist on twitter and it seems like his account is suspended. I miss his and your content. Do either of you still exist on the alternative social media sites, like gab or something else?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Hesed, sorry, I’m just seeing this. Yes Rock-ro and I are both taking an extended break from Twitter, I’m just on there seldom lately.

      You can send me any question or comment for him & I will forward it.

      He hasn’t been writing on FE lately but rather is involved with other projects.


      1. I do see what I think is your gmail account in the comment you left on my blog. Can I contact you there?

        Are you guys taking a break from social media altogether or just twitter? If it was just twitter, did you guys consider gab? I’m not sure how similar Telegram or MeWe are or Minds, or CreationSocial. If you guys were gonna share your stuff on one of those platforms, even the christian one, I might consider joining to get your insights on flat earth. You both did a number on my head with your comments and memes to show me how baseless my globe acceptance was. I’m off the mainstream social media so I’d prefer alt-tech.

        But if not, thanx for the invitation to contact you both.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: