Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism  (Read 9805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SPelli

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Reputation: +49/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
« Reply #60 on: June 13, 2023, 01:45:50 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Earth's rotation?  Earth does not move.

    Gravity?  Gravity has never been proven to exist, and even mainstream physicists are questioning its existence as anything independent of electromagnetism.  There's a lecture online from an MIT professor of physics who was teaching that gravity is such a weak force that it has no effect on earth, that what we see on earth is due to electromagnetism, and that gravity only works between planets.  Except that their cosmological predictions based on gravity are so far off, by orders of magnitude, that they had to invent "dark matter" to account for huge amounts of "missing gravity".

    But you would agree that the effects that are attributed to gravity exist, right?  If you drop something heavier than air, it falls to the ground. Whether this is due to "gravity" or something else, the effects are the same.  So, if gravity somehow poses a problem for the Flat earth theory (and I'm too new to this debate to know if it does), you can't dismiss the problem on the basis that gravity does not exist, since what poses the problem are the effects, and the effects exist even if gravity itself is not the cause, and in fact does not exist.

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5237
    • Reputation: +2046/-250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #61 on: June 13, 2023, 07:18:52 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • So let me get this straight, anyone who has ever been presented to the public as having gone on any sort of space flight, from Gagarin and Glenn on down to our present day, has been taken aside and told something like "hey, this is all a big hoax, the earth is actually flat, and if you don't go along with the hoax, bad things will happen to you (and possibly your loved ones as well)".  Furthermore, every ostensibly space-exploring country is in on the hoax, and during the Cold War, the USSR and the US carried on the hoax in concert, ditto China more recently.  And satellites, if there are any (i.e., if they're not just high-altitude balloons that everyone thinks are satellites), fly around in big circles above a flat earth, and everyone involved with the technics of that, from all different countries including the DPRK, is in on the hoax as well.  (I used to supervise the installation of satellite receivers, but nobody ever clued me in.)  And nobody's ever betrayed the secret.

    Neil Armstrong's comments and demeanor always seemed kind of strange, but I thought he was just being a reticent, aloof jerk, kind of like Calvin Coolidge in a spacesuit.  (Don't get me wrong, I admire Coolidge as a president, but his taciturn nature would probably get labeled as "selective mutism" today.)


    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +1417/-323
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #62 on: June 13, 2023, 09:48:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Santa Claus is based on St Nicholas and i've seen Sasquatch and Santa on tv so both are real.  :laugh1:

    But I do wait for the day when Big Foot is proven.  It's a vast, vast world out there.  They could easily exist.
    Pretty sure father christmas came from the English Puritans. It was later conflated with St Nicholas. I don't think the Saint would like people singing about him writing a list of people's sins and judging them and how he is coming on the birthday of his Lord...

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +404/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #63 on: June 14, 2023, 09:55:58 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • So let me get this straight, anyone who has ever been presented to the public as having gone on any sort of space flight, from Gagarin and Glenn on down to our present day, has been taken aside and told something like "hey, this is all a big hoax, the earth is actually flat, and if you don't go along with the hoax, bad things will happen to you (and possibly your loved ones as well)".  Furthermore, every ostensibly space-exploring country is in on the hoax, and during the Cold War, the USSR and the US carried on the hoax in concert, ditto China more recently.  And satellites, if there are any (i.e., if they're not just high-altitude balloons that everyone thinks are satellites), fly around in big circles above a flat earth, and everyone involved with the technics of that, from all different countries including the DPRK, is in on the hoax as well.  (I used to supervise the installation of satellite receivers, but nobody ever clued me in.)  And nobody's ever betrayed the secret.

    Neil Armstrong's comments and demeanor always seemed kind of strange, but I thought he was just being a reticent, aloof jerk, kind of like Calvin Coolidge in a spacesuit.  (Don't get me wrong, I admire Coolidge as a president, but his taciturn nature would probably get labeled as "selective mutism" today.)
    Actually only a few people need to be in on the conspiracy.

    People are so indoctrinated that even after they see with their own two eyes objects that should be miles below the horizon they still don't realize they were fooled.

    At the end, every single time, people come back to this argument. It can't be because how could soooo many people be lying. No, most of them are not lying, they're just as gullible as you.

    Those who see the truth go on to make videos and write books about it, some get disappeared others get ignored. Are you pretending that there aren't flight control, pilot and astronots who know the earth is flat and witness to it?

    You think the red bull guy who jumped from the highest point is in on it? Of course, not. What's my proof? You've seen the same flat horizon that he did and you're still not convinced.

    No amount of irrefutable evidence will convince anyone until he at least accepts the possibility that he's wrong.

    I know it's hard, I also thought FEs were idiots and mocked them but I swallowed my pride and gave it a shot. The evidence is overwhelming and every single objection I had has an explanation.

    There's so many aspects to it. For example, the globe could have been proven beyond a doubt a million different ways - photo from space, transantarctic flight, 24 hour sun, etc. But all of it always turns out fake. Why are people faking 24 hour sun videos if they could just film the real thing? Why don't (((they))) let one, just one,  plane of flat earthers fly over Antarctica to end this dangerous cult once and for all?

    I could list so much more but there's no point since others have done all the work for me already.

    For example, look at the video Save a flat earther by taboo conspiracy for an overview of some key points.

    Wanna hear something interesting? Whenever someone is open to the idea that the earth is flat I tell them not to waste time on it because it's not that important. However, when someone ridicules the idea they really need to see the evidence to humble themselves.


    Offline SPelli

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 82
    • Reputation: +49/-32
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #64 on: June 14, 2023, 10:09:50 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually only a few people need to be in on the conspiracy.

    People are so indoctrinated that even after they see with their own two eyes objects that should be miles below the horizon they still don't realize they were fooled.

    I haven't seen it.  Can you post something here showing that two objects are visible that should be miles below the horizon?  In the few videos I've seen, the objects were too close.  10 or 20 miles apart.  There are ways of explaining why objects can be seen at those distances, in spite of the curvature. 

    Why hasn't anyone shot a laser beam from California to Hawaii?  Or why not just use the sun instead?  If the sun, at sunrise, is visible in California, it should be visible in Hawaii at the same time.  Why isn't it?

    And why hasn't Ladislaus answered my earlier objections?


    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +1417/-323
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #65 on: June 14, 2023, 10:24:41 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually only a few people need to be in on the conspiracy.

    People are so indoctrinated that even after they see with their own two eyes objects that should be miles below the horizon they still don't realize they were fooled.
    This is an important point. The recent covid and (((vaccine))) scam is perfect proof of this. Many people that should be suspect of certain things chose to ignore them due to personal reasons; like the opinions of men, money, worldly honour/fame, their status as 'doctors' etc.

    Even if they didn't fully understand the 'conspiracy' it doesn't take much to push someone into going along with something they don't fully understand. (and most doctors do not understand vaccines at all, they just agree with the 'fact sheet' a corporation gives them telling them it's 'safe')

    So when the average person who doesn't truly question authority sees all these 'experts' agreeing on something, they also agree with it without question. And anyone disagreeing is attacked for disrupting the 'status quo'.

    Offline EWPJ

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 558
    • Reputation: +368/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #66 on: June 14, 2023, 11:53:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually only a few people need to be in on the conspiracy.

    People are so indoctrinated that even after they see with their own two eyes objects that should be miles below the horizon they still don't realize they were fooled.

    At the end, every single time, people come back to this argument. It can't be because how could soooo many people be lying. No, most of them are not lying, they're just as gullible as you.

    Those who see the truth go on to make videos and write books about it, some get disappeared others get ignored. Are you pretending that there aren't flight control, pilot and astronots who know the earth is flat and witness to it?

    You think the red bull guy who jumped from the highest point is in on it? Of course, not. What's my proof? You've seen the same flat horizon that he did and you're still not convinced.

    No amount of irrefutable evidence will convince anyone until he at least accepts the possibility that he's wrong.

    I know it's hard, I also thought FEs were idiots and mocked them but I swallowed my pride and gave it a shot. The evidence is overwhelming and every single objection I had has an explanation.

    There's so many aspects to it. For example, the globe could have been proven beyond a doubt a million different ways - photo from space, transantarctic flight, 24 hour sun, etc. But all of it always turns out fake. Why are people faking 24 hour sun videos if they could just film the real thing? Why don't (((they))) let one, just one,  plane of flat earthers fly over Antarctica to end this dangerous cult once and for all?

    I could list so much more but there's no point since others have done all the work for me already.

    For example, look at the video Save a flat earther by taboo conspiracy for an overview of some key points.

    Wanna hear something interesting? Whenever someone is open to the idea that the earth is flat I tell them not to waste time on it because it's not that important. However, when someone ridicules the idea they really need to see the evidence to humble themselves.

    Although I'm a mostly convinced FEer, the underlined needs addressed because from talking to just average people who have been to Alaska they concur that this does indeed happen, two in my own personal life that can attest to it and they talked about it even before the whole FE movement started.

    Please don't anyone start with "they are in on it" or "they were just indoctrinated to see the 24 hour sun" (lol c'mon) or ""they" made a sun generator to keep the lie going" or stuff like that just makes FEer's look stupid and crazy and you can bet they have shills out there doing this exact thing for that exact reason. 

    Sure there's videos that can be edited, cut, and spliced that show that the videos of this are "doctored" when in fact it could be the content creators that are doing the deceiving and doctoring but people don't want to see this possibility.

    I think FEer's need to address this phenomenon and not just blow it off.  I actually think it CAN be reconciled with FE but it might have to alter the perception of what the sun is or the perception of the shape of the dome (or barrier) separating the waters from the waters, or even where the landmasses themselves actually are in relation to the plane.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #67 on: June 14, 2023, 12:06:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Although I'm a mostly convinced FEer, the underlined needs addressed because from talking to just average people who have been to Alaska they concur that this does indeed happen, two in my own personal life that can attest to it and they talked about it even before the whole FE movement started.

    Alaska's 24-hour sun isn't an issue.  It's perfectly consistent with the prevailing FE model.  What's at issue is the Antarctic 24-hour sun.  Only proof of it have been 3 different videos, each of which has been proven to have been doctored / edited / enhanced.


    Offline SPelli

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 82
    • Reputation: +49/-32
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #68 on: June 14, 2023, 12:24:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please don't anyone start with "they are in on it" or "they were just indoctrinated to see the 24 hour sun" (lol c'mon)...

    What is the 24 hour sun argument?  How does it disprove the flat earth?

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 937
    • Reputation: +396/-150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #69 on: June 14, 2023, 01:12:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't been pro or against the FE model - just never really looked into it.  But I've been checking out the vids on these threads and have to say, FE is actually easier to understand than geocentrism because the observations are right here - water always flattens itself out, camera technology can observe extreme distances, vanishing point, etc.  That's way easier than interferometers and aether.  It's actually getting interesting.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #70 on: June 14, 2023, 01:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is the 24 hour sun argument?  How does it disprove the flat earth?

    So, according to the prevailing FE model (a general model), the shape of the earth would have Antarctica not actually being a continent at the South pole, but rather an ice wall or perimeter around the outer edge.

    So it would look something like this:


    So because of that, when the sun is furthest south, at the tropic of Capricorn, it would be difficult to explain how it could continuously light up the entire circuit formed by Antarctica.  There could be course be extensive illumination caused by reflection off the firmament, but this would not allow for illumination of the entire perimeter of Antarctica for 24 hours.

    But when the sun goes furthest north, at the tropic of Cancer, it's close enough to the North Pole to account for 24-hour sun up in the Arctic (which does certainly happen).

    So the claim is that there's also 24-hour sun in Antarctica, but it's never been proven.  There are 3 videos out there purporting to record a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, but ALL THREE have been doctored (and it's easily provable).  In two of them, where the sun is visible, either the cloud formations or the rays coming off the sun are identical to a pixel at the beginning and at the end of the video.  In the third, the sun itself is not visible, but it purports to show shadows rotating around these flags.  But you can see the skips, where the shadow on the flag suddenly jumps about 120 degrees at some point, where clearly something was edited out.  Why the need to edit and doctor these videos if there's a real 24-hour sun?  It would be simple enough to let the camera run naturally.  That only adds ammunition to the claims of FE.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #71 on: June 14, 2023, 01:46:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't been pro or against the FE model - just never really looked into it.  But I've been checking out the vids on these threads and have to say, FE is actually easier to understand than geocentrism because the observations are right here - water always flattens itself out, camera technology can observe extreme distances, vanishing point, etc.  That's way easier than interferometers and aether.  It's actually getting interesting.

    Yeah, initially I just blew off FE.  At some point I decided to have a look.  I have an open mind about cօռspιʀαcιҽs, because we've been lied to about so much, almost about everything.  But I remained skeptical.  Then I started to look at the evidence, and I find the case for FE to be very compelling.  Whenever I approach an issue, I always try to adopt the opposite stance, where I imagine I'm a believer in the Globe an trying to prove it to a Flat Earther.  I can't really do it.  When someone shows me the videos of "see too far", I could simply throw out the word "refraction", but that would just be to explain it away, without any real evidence that refraction could cause what we're seeing.  I could only defend the Globe if I already believed in it ahead of time and was just trying to explain away the FE arguments.  I simply can't explain away FE.  Case for it is incredibly solid.  Probably the only thing I could come up with would be a theory that the earth's electromagnetic bends light around the globe at a consistent rate.  But I'd have absolutely zero evidence that electromagnetism can bend light.  Allegedly "gravity" has been measured to bend light, as it passes near the sun, but the degree of bending was so miniscule, even with the purported mass of the sun that it had to be detected by very accurate instruments, and this degree of bending could in no way account for bending around the globe.  But I looked this up, and science claims that only charged particles (like protons or electrons) can be bent by electro-magnetic fields.  So I would be at a total loss to explain the "see to far" evidence.

    Along those lines, there are many other serious problems with alleging that the Globe moves.  While it's a slightly different issue, it's tangentially related in that it invalidates the entire paradigm of modern science.  I could go on for paragraphs with evidence that the Globe does not move, does not rotate, is not flying through space at breakneck speeds, etc.

    Offline SPelli

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 82
    • Reputation: +49/-32
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #72 on: June 14, 2023, 02:15:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, according to the prevailing FE model (a general model), the shape of the earth would have Antarctica not actually being a continent at the South pole, but rather an ice wall or perimeter around the outer edge.

    So it would look something like this:


    So because of that, when the sun is furthest south, at the tropic of Capricorn, it would be difficult to explain how it could continuously light up the entire circuit formed by Antarctica.  There could be course be extensive illumination caused by reflection off the firmament, but this would not allow for illumination of the entire perimeter of Antarctica for 24 hours.

    But when the sun goes furthest north, at the tropic of Cancer, it's close enough to the North Pole to account for 24-hour sun up in the Arctic (which does certainly happen).

    So the claim is that there's also 24-hour sun in Antarctica, but it's never been proven.  There are 3 videos out there purporting to record a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, but ALL THREE have been doctored (and it's easily provable).  In two of them, where the sun is visible, either the cloud formations or the rays coming off the sun are identical to a pixel at the beginning and at the end of the video.  In the third, the sun itself is not visible, but it purports to show shadows rotating around these flags.  But you can see the skips, where the shadow on the flag suddenly jumps about 120 degrees at some point, where clearly something was edited out.  Why the need to edit and doctor these videos if there's a real 24-hour sun?  It would be simple enough to let the camera run naturally.  That only adds ammunition to the claims of FE.


    Got it.  One question: how long do FE's believe it takes for the sun to make a full circle above the earth, so that it ends up back where it started?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #73 on: June 14, 2023, 03:54:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Got it.  One question: how long do FE's believe it takes for the sun to make a full circle above the earth, so that it ends up back where it started?

    Well, it would seem to take the usual 24 hours to make a circuit, which would mean that it has to move faster the further "South" or outward it goes, and researchers have noted the difference sin how quickly and more abruptly the light appears and disappears at surise/sunset respectively in the Southern latitudes.  Even though it moves more quickly in the South, experiments demonstrate a wider area of coverage for the light when there's a glass dome over the top of the surface.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Article Against Flat-Erthism
    « Reply #74 on: June 14, 2023, 04:05:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not sure I buy those models that have the sun moving parallel to the surface of the earth.  If the sun is in the firmament, and the firmament is in a spherical shape, then when the sun is higher up in the firmament, then it would rotate more slowly, whereas if it were lower (more to the south), then it would rotate more quickly.  That would not be unlike how the closer you get to the equator, the more quickly the earth is rotating, so about 1,000 MPH at the equator (on the globe model) and 0 MPH at the North Pole, and anywhere in between.  So it's the same concept but in inverse.  If the spherical firmament is rotating around the flat earth, if the sun is higher in the firmament, if the entire sphere of the firmament rotates one time in 24 hours, then the points higher up are moving more slowly than the parts that are lower.