New Moon Occurring at Night Proves Heliocentric Model is Wrong

Children are not taught how to think in school; instead, they are conditioned on what to think. They accept what they are told without questioning the authority or logic behind it. People like to point to the myth of evolution as the kind of lies that are taught in schools, which the children are conditioned to believe. And most children continue believing that myth into adulthood.

Heliocentrism is another of the heathen religious myths taught as though it is science. But that myth, like evolution, does not hold up to true scientific scrutiny. For example, we are taught in school that the moon is allegedly orbiting a spherical earth from a distance of 238,900 miles in space while it reflects the light from our distant sun, approximately 93 million miles away. A new moon is supposed to occur when the sun is behind the moon, thus leaving the unlit side of the moon facing the earth. That dark moon side of the moon facing the earth is called a new moon. The scientists at explain:

The New Moon is up in the daytime sky. It rises and sets around the same time as the Sun, bringing it too close to the Sun’s glare to be seen with the naked eye. (bold emphasis in original)

Image From

Thus, according to the heliocentric model, a new moon can only happen on the daylight side of the earth. The problem with that construct is that new moons, in fact, happen with regularity at night. The common occurrence of a nighttime new moon would be impossible if the heliocentric model were true. But nighttime new moons happen with predictable consistency. That regular occurrence of a nighttime new moon proves that the heliocentric model is wrong.

Screenshot of the moon phase calculator from showing that new moons appear with regularity at night. Those occurrences are impossible under the heliocentric model.

What is the true model of our cosmology? It is just as God revealed in his Holy Bible. The earth is flat and stationary. The sun and moon travel in a circuit over the flat earth.

Why would the powers that be lie about our cosmology and sell the public on a mythical heliocentric model? Nikita Khruschev inadvertently revealed the reason. Nikita Khrushchev stated, “Why should you clutch at God? Here is Gagarin who flew to space but saw no God there.” Khruschev was referring to Yuri Gagarin, who is alleged to be the first man in space.

Nikita Khrushchev was the First Secretary (formerly and later known as General Secretary) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers (in effect, Premier) from 1958 to 1964. Colonel Valentin Petrov, associate professor at the Gagarin Air Force Academy, explained that Khrushchev said there was no God in space before the Central Committee plenary meeting that was considering anti-religious propaganda a way to undermine the growing influence of Christian churches in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev was advising that line of propaganda to refute the legitimacy of the Christian belief that God is in heaven above.

Khrushchev inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. His statement reveals that the purpose of the heliocentric model is to demonstrate that above us is not heaven but rather an empty void, which they call outer space. The space programs for all countries are intelligence operations to sell the heliocentric myth of the earth spinning and orbiting in outer space. Thus, since there is no heaven, then there can be no God. The modern space programs pretend to send astronauts into space and jimmy up fake CGI pictures to undermine the authority of the Bible and try to convince the masses that there is “no God there.”

The Bible states that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalms 19:1. The Bible makes it clear that there is firmament over the earth. And above the firmament is God’s throne surrounded by brightness. Ezekiel 1:25-28. The heliocentric outer space is supposed to be full of darkness. That implants in the minds of men that the heaven of the Bible is a myth and there is no God.

According to the heliocentric model there is no glorious brightness surrounding God on his throne in heaven above the firmament. Instead, where God’s throne is supposed to be, above the firmament, heliocentrists say there is instead just an empty, weightless, vacuum of black nothingness. The heliocentric model presents an empty vacuum with no heaven and thus there is no God. But the Bible states that God is above us in heaven, watching over man. (Job 22:12; Ecclesiastes 24:5; Psalms 14:2 & 33:13) God states that “heaven is my throne.” (Acts 7:49) But Satan has used the “science falsely so called” of heliocentrism to remove God in the minds of men from his throne and replace the glorious abode of God with a dark and hostile empty vacuum. “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD’S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.” (Psalms 11:4) “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool.” (Acts 7:49)

Heliocentrism undermines the gospel. The gospel is the entire Holy Bible, not just some of it. Matthew 4:4. Christian belief is an all or nothing proposition. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16.

God’s account of his creation is part and parcel of the gospel. A person with genuine faith believes what Jesus said about both heavenly and earthly things. “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” John 3:12.

Jesus is God. Jesus created all things in heaven and on earth. See Colossians 1:16-18. God has revealed himself through his creation.

“[T]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20.

If men have a misunderstanding of God’s creation, they will also have a misunderstanding of who God is. If people believe in a creation that does not exist, they consequently also believe in a creator that does not exist. It is essential, therefore, to have an accurate understanding of God’s creation. God did not make a movable, spherical earth. If men believe in a heliocentric creation, they will necessarily believe in a heliocentric creator. A heliocentric creation does not exist. So also, a heliocentric creator does not exist. A heliocentric creator is a false god. We have been warned to avoid the preaching of a false gospel, which presents a false Jesus.

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” 2 Corinthians 11:4.

Why Astronaut Chris Hadfield Will Not Discuss Flat Earth

Long-Distance Radio Transmissions Prove That the Earth is Flat

The Holy Bible Describes a Flat and Stationary Earth

The North Star Proves the Earth Does Not Move

They Teach That the Earth Is a Spinning Globe So That People Will Doubt God Exists

PBS Caught Using CGI in an Experiment to Falsely Show the Earth is a Sphere

Company’s Space Travel Plans Using Balloons Reveals the Vacuum of Space is a Myth

Can You Hear Me Now?

Propaganda Misfire by National Geographic

Dr. Danny Faulkner Caught Speaking Lies

5 thoughts on “New Moon Occurring at Night Proves Heliocentric Model is Wrong

  1. Mr Hendrie
    how droll that you use TimeandDate website as your authority for prediction of socalled “new moons”
    did it not occur to you that the people who run it, presume the heliocentric model? So that all their data = which you’re happy to use = flows from that presumption?
    perhaps point us to a website … or anyone … who uses the Flat Earth model, for predicting occurrences of the heavenly bodies?
    following is a short essay which I gave to Dr Henry Makow, after he posted one of your articles re FlatEarth
    I encourage you to do the little experiment for yourself, before you fly off the handle like you did last time I exposed the Flat Earth non-sense
    Gordon S Watson
    Dr Henry Makow

    since the name of Edward Hendrie was folded-in to presentation of the Flat Earth thing, here’s a FACT that must be considered. On the cover of his book The Greatest Lie on Earth he uses the graphic image of Gleason’s Map which boasts that it is “scientifically and practically correct”. Yet a simple exercise in geometry undoes its basic proposition.

    At page 44 of Mr Hendrie’s book he wrote > the distance from Clinton itself in a straight line from Edmonds as reported on is 11.65 miles. Referring to Clinton and Edmonds Washington State. Notice = his authority for that distance on the surface of the Earth being That same website reports 11,039 kilometres | 6859 land miles | 5963 nautical miles, as the distance between Johannesburg South Africa and Sydney Australia. Several other websites corroborate these figures.

    At page 284 of Mr Hendrie’ s book is an image of Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World.
    I sent away for this image on a poster. Overlayed on the image of the flat earth is the grid of parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude as understood by modern science. The poster has a ruler showing the relationship of nautical miles to English miles and also, to degrees of latitude. One degree of latitude at the Equator is equal to 60 nautical miles. Thus, on the circle of the Equator on Gleason’s map each segment of 15 degrees is equivalent to 900 nautical miles.

    I put a ruler on the image and took the measure of a segment of 15 degrees of latitude on the Equator. That distance on the rule being = one + one sixteenth of an inch. I then put that same ruler on that same poster, and measured the distance between Sydney Australia and Gauteng Province South Africa. Johannesburg is not shown on that map. I guess that in 1892, it wasn’t worthy of notice by a mapmaker. For my primitive demonstration Gauteng province is close enough to qualify. It is important that all-concerned appreciate that I took my measurement in a straight line, over the landmasses of China, India and Africa. Rather than the Great Circle Route over the oceans, such as flown by Quantas Airways. On the rule, the distance is exactly eleven inches.
    Thus, according to the ruler provided by Edward Hendrie himself, the distance between Sydney and where Joburg is today, is 9317 nautical miles / 10,721 land miles. But his own authority = = sez that that distance is 6859 land miles.
    That glaring discrepancy is Mr Hendrie’s problem, not mine.

    If FlatEarthers dispute the conclusion of this experiment, then onus is on them to present evidence re the mileage between Johannesburg and Sydney Australia, on a presumed, strictly flat, plane. The nature of evidence is that it can be tested ; if it cannot be tested, it isn’t evidence. Call up Quantas Airlines. Recently, they resumed flights between Sydney and Johannesburg. Quantas does not operate flights of fancy. Their airplanes deliver real people from one part of the globe, to another, in what we used to call “the real world”. They’re pretty good at it, never having had an accident.

    To the best of my knowledge, Johannesburg is in South Africa … and Sydney is in Australia.
    why that’s a good starting point for EVIDENCE, is that the topography of FlatEarthi-ness, as illustrated by Gleason’s Map, is = from the Equator on out, radiating away from the North pole centre point, the surface area of the Earth gets larger, rather than decreases as in the model of the Earth as a globe

    Via this image, Mr Hendrie posits that, from the Equator, towards what is commonly called “South”, the area on the surface of the Earth is significantly different than as portrayed on a model globe of the Earth. That enormous expanse ultimately bounded by an insurmountable wall of ice. What I gather from the very little I’ve read/ heard of their position : FlatEarthers say that what some of us call ” the continent of Antarctica”, does not exist at all.

    his use of FreeMaps when it suits him, yet ignoring the figure on as it undoes the myth peddled by FlatEarthers, gives away the game.
    He likes to quote Scripture, and good for him. So it’s worth noting that Jesus Christ opined : ‘someone who is not faithful in a little thing, won’t be faithful in big things.’

    As a matter of FACT, the relationship of miles to degrees of latitude has been used by seafarers for at least 3 centuries as they depart a port, then return to it, relying upon it for navigation. You cannot argue with success. Or … maybe you can? Please give me the name and contact address for someone who claims they circumnavigated the continents, returning to home port, without using the parallels of longitude, as shown on Gleason’s Map. Frances Drake did, in 1577, on his voyage around the world. A major part of his secret mission, was ; to get more and better information about how to calculate longitude. In FACT, carved in stone to this day, are remains of the gigantic astronomical instrument which he built at Nehalem Bay Oregon.

    for high adventure along with a history lesson, I recommend the book “The Secret Voyage of Francis Drake” by Sam Bawlf. In order to write it, Mr Bawlf went to the archives of the British Navy, and viewed hard copy of material which had been created by Captain Drake, 400 years earlier. FACT is, it was the information gained by Drake et al. ( never forgetting his bold crew) which enabled Britannia to rule the waves. The book is especially valuable for Christians to read Drake’s own testimony regarding his reliance upon God Almighty. Drake didn’t believe in the Flat Earth. Neither did the men in King Solomon’s navy, who were circumnavigating the world 3000 years ago. Babblers like Edward Hendrie are “children calling out to each other on the playground”. They can never take away the accomplishments of the Great Seafarers of old

    Gordon S Watson
    Metchosin British Columbia
    May 1st 2022 A. D.

    • I address the issue you have raised in “The Greatest Lie on Earth (Expanded Edition).” The expanded edition addresses many of the arguments by globe advocates like yourself. You have correctly pointed out the discrepancy between the Gleason map and the orthodox maps that assume the sphericity of the earth. But you are in error that your argument somehow proves the sphericity of the earth. I specifically address the flights between Johannesburg and Sydney in the expanded edition of my book.

Leave a Comment