It certainly seems reasonable to me to believe in the geocentric theory. Firstly, it doesn’t compromise the common (unanimous?)  interpretation of Sacred Scripture for Millennia. Secondly, the geocentric model works just as well as the heliocentric model in predicting the movements of the planets and eclipse events. Thirdly, I can understand why modern science and the conspirators would want to replace the geocentric model.

I read the FE threads with interest and I’m actually looking for a reason to believe it, but I find most of the arguments for it unsatisfying. As I’ve said on other threads, it seems to me that the FE theory is likely a disinformation campaign set in place to muddy the waters of geocentrism. Frankly, I would dismiss it immediately, out of hand, were it not for Ladislaus and others on this forum giving it some credence.

If the Church taught me that the FE model was true I would believe it without batting an eye. If the Church held it in the same category as it holds the geocentric model, I would have no problem accepting it as true. Even if it was the common opinion of ancient and Christian philosophers and scientists that the Earth was flat, I would feel confident that I was on the right track accepting the FE model. But none of these things are the case.

The answers to the objections against the FE theory are not satisfying to me. For instance, the reason given to explain away the “crows nest on a ship” proof of a global Earth, is just not tenable. Another objection is the lack of a cogent explanation of the movements of planets and eclipse events. The thought that no explorer ever docuмented the supposed “ice wall” around the edges of the Earth makes me scratch my head.  There are many more examples of the holes in the FE theory, but these are sufficient for me to dismiss it, at least for now, as a reasonable theory.

This is 100% where I am too. Great post. I think DL recently went FE from being a globetard, I wonder what made him take the final plunge? Digital Logos, mind helping me and QvD out?

For me Starlink seems to be impossible to fake on a Flat Earth model and the ping should not be consistent globally. IF the Earth was flat then lag would be consistently greater at the edge of the Earth, and this is simply not the case. No one was able to answer this in my thread I made in the subforum. I need a model of exactly where I am on FE in order to test lag and no one was able to help. I am motivated and the thread just kinda moved on, unfortunately... This could easily prove FE.

8) the fact that we see and have for centuries seen the exact same "face" of the moon.  I personally find the explanation that the moon rotates (to the second) at the exact same rate that it revolves the earth completely implausible.  Even if it were a second off, it would have changed its features over the years

Oops...lol...should've read your entire post before chiming in! 

Uhm, because there is a phenomenon that we observe where objects move toward the earth.  But what's at issue is a scientific explanation for said phenomenon.  So they were using the term "gravity" to describe the phenomenon.  Even modern physicists admit that they simply don't know what causes this phenomenon that's been referred to as gravity.

Magnetism exists, and existed even before anybody thought about how it might work.

Same thing with Gravity.

It's nonsense to claim "Gravity doesn't exist", and calumny to claim that Einstein or Tesla said so.

This is 100% where I am too. Great post. I think DL recently went FE from being a globetard, I wonder what made him take the final plunge? Digital Logos, mind helping me and QvD out?

For me Starlink seems to be impossible to fake on a Flat Earth model and the ping should not be consistent globally. IF the Earth was flat then lag would be consistently greater at the edge of the Earth, and this is simply not the case. No one was able to answer this in my thread I made in the subforum. I need a model of exactly where I am on FE in order to test lag and no one was able to help. I am motivated and the thread just kinda moved on, unfortunately... This could easily prove FE.

I made the plunge because FE, in the sense of a flat plane within a globe (as I and Lad have posted images of already), fits more with the descriptions of Scripture and practical observation about the nature of the earth.

Secondarily, the weird stuff about Antarctica, the continuous hoaxes of NASA and their occult connections, and that modern science would rather rely heavily upon mathematical equations to explain our world due to evidence contrary to the heliocentric, ball model; tells me there is something worth hiding. Not to mention the sheer DEMONIC vitriolic reaction average people, even Catholics, have in response to FE.

As for Starlink: I don't have an answer for you, I would say look at the practical evidence regarding the shape of the earth before worrying about how Starlink actually works.

I posted this video in your Redpill me thread:

Dumb question, if the earth isn't spherical, what's up with geosynchronous satellites?  (No pun intended.)

Is the satellite industry in on the "big lie" too, and why hasn't anyone ever "cracked" and told the truth?

My strengths lie in liberal arts and rhetoric, not science, so I can't bring vast reserves of scientific theory and knowledge to this discussion, but I do know enough to ask simple questions.

I can say that when I was called upon to teach my son science in homeschool --- our state requires it, though homeschoolers have wide latitude on the actual curriculum --- when I got to the part about all material bodies (from atoms upwards to planets) having an attraction to one another, I thought "you know, I'm almost going to have to take this on faith, because it makes no sense to me at all". 

And WRT evolution, yes, Holt life science does have a section on it, and even with my limited scientific chops, I can go through that section, and find more holes in it than Swiss cheese, baldfaced assertions based upon the scantiest of evidence.  I know that the Dimonds have all kinds of problems, but Creation and Miracles is not one of them, and Michael correctly notes that similarity of function in organisms may be evidence of a common designer, not a common origin.  Do we not use templates and "the basic idea" to make everything under the sun? 

If I use some of the same design features, if you will, to bake an apple pie, as I do a blackberry pie, does it mean that both of those pies are descended from some Platonic archetypical "pie", or that I, the creator of the pies, found a method of pie creation that works, and I apply it to both pies?  Erosion alone gives the lie to the notion that "fossils aren't always created because the conditions aren't always the same, but take our word for it, the fossils you see point to a definite progression, we just don't have all the information we need because there are gaps".  I told my son that it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to accept Genesis in its various interpretations.

What others claim was said by a long-dead man doesn't exactly carry much weight.  It is not that I don't believe that some, or even many, say such things about what he said/thought/did; it is that I DO NOT CARE, as hearsay about what a dead man did or did not say means nothing.

I could just as easily claim Tesla's entire motive, if he said/thought/did anything at all on the subject, was to explain the true nature of what men have mistakenly come to call "gravity."

I don't care much about that. Ladislaus claims that "Tesla didn't believe in gravity" (Reply #5).

Here, you can read that Tesla didn't deny gravity, like Ladislaus and other flat earth tards claim:

http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1919/electrical_experimenter/nikola_tesla/the_moon_s_rotation


P.S.: It's grave nonsense to claim that gravity is a misnomer.

Dumb question, if the earth isn't spherical, what's up with geosynchronous satellites?  (No pun intended.)

Is the satellite industry in on the "big lie" too, and why hasn't anyone ever "cracked" and told the truth?

There are in fact "geosynchronous" satellites, except that there's no moving earth for them to be in sync with.  I'll find some videos.  Satellites are in fact a lie, and yes the government-tied "satellite industry" is in fact in on the hoax.  Satellites are actually held aloft by helium balloons.  Some of these crash from time to time, with the balloon attached, and are found by people in third world countries, etc. and videoed before the government can come clean them up.  NASA is the biggest purchaser and consumer of helium in the world.

Einstein was a putz.  Appeals to him actually undermine your case.

Don't you read the thread? Ladislaus started talking about Einstein. I don't appeal to him, I just point out that Ladislaus is talking nonsense about Einstein and Tesla.