http://www.flatearthflatwrong.com/ is currently a parked domain…

• Almost all the early and medieval church scholars who commented on the earth’s shape explicitly said it was round.
• .
• Medieval European rulers used a golden sphere or orb called the globus cruciger to represent the earth under Christ’s rule.
• .
• Columbus’s opponents never disputed the shape of the earth, but only its size—and they were right!
• .
• The flat earth myth began with a fictional account of Columbus in the 19th century by Washington Irving. Then it was aggressively pushed in influential anti-Christian polemics by Draper and White.
• .
• A final irony: the leading flat-earther today is an evolutionist!
• .
• Select Footnotes:
• 1. Sarfati, J., Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution, creation.com/deceive, 24 September 2008.
• .
• 5. Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991.
• .
• 6. Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997.
• .
• 7. Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal, journallive.co.uk, 13 February 2009.
• .
• 8. The Galileo affair is another anti-Christian myth of ‘religion v. Science’, although it was really science vs. science. See Sarfati, J., Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49–51; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial.
• .
• 9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2.
  
  And almost right at the beginning of the Summa, in First Part, Q 1, article 1: Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?, Reply to Objection 2 Thomas discussed methods of proving something. Here, he referred to the roundness of the earth as an example obvious to all: “Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”
  
  In the original Latin, Thomas used rotunda for round. And in First Part, Question 67, Thomas made it clear that he knew the shape of the earth, because he also used the word hemisphere (Latin hemisphaerium), meaning half of a sphere: “Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. … Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time; because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, “He called the light day, and the darkness night.”
• .
• Primary source docuмentation is available in my articles, Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; creation.com/whyscience; and, The biblical roots of modern science, Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010; creation.com/roots.
• .
• Russell, C.A., “The Conflict of Science and Religion”, in: Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, p. 15, New York 2000.
• .
• Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011.
• .
• Works of Aristotle I: p. 389.
• .
• [Ed. note: Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, although even Bede understood that it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches. But he realized that this was a tiny deviation from sphericity; that it was reasonable to call the earth a "sphere." Also, long after Bede, it was predicted, then discovered, that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles. In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton, a creationist, was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation.
  
  Simple arithmetic should demonstrate how vacuous and desperate this objection is. The earth’s equatorial radius 6,378.1 km, while its polar radius 6,356.8 km. The deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, is 10,916 km deep—<0.2% deviation from sphericity. Ever seen a potato, or even a rubber ball, this spherical? Also, the oblateness, given that the difference between polar and equatorial radii is only 21.3 km, is only 0.3% deviation from a sphere.
  
  In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people. Scale this down to the size of some playing balls: if a ball were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, one could safely call its shape a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by merely a fifth of a millimetre.]

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch...........

Hope you will let us know what you think of his book after you have actually read it.  He stated that he wanted to examine and answer every scientific claim put forth for a flat earth.

Since you and some others on this forum seem to know so much about the flat earth and hold Sungenis in contempt for supposedly knowing so little about it why don't you ask to publicly debate him on the subject rather than merely toss invective at him?  Is that asking too much?

You say, "he thinks man went to the moon."  Actually, he has many times expressed grave doubts as to whether man has gone to the moon.

Sungenis spent 9 months of hard labor researching and writing his book, Flat Earth, Flat Wrong.  I'm sorry you dismiss that good faith effort so casually.  Perhaps, you will in good faith read his book and seriously consider what he has put forth in it and then report back to us.