CathInfo.com

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I wonder if Sugenis has been approached with this example

I would suspect so.

But it obviously burned up in his thick atmosphere of kookiness.

If you've ever seen this question put to him anywhere, let me know.  I'd want to hear his response.

Another problem for geocentrism relates to meteors. Amateur astronomers are often outside at night in dark areas and intentionally looking into the sky. It is well known among them that one sees far more meteors after midnight than before midnight.

The reason for this is that (viewed looking down from above the north pole) the earth is moving counterclockwise around the sun and turning counterclockwise on its axis, so that from noon to midnight we are on the backside of the earth as it travels around the sun, and from midnight to noon we are on the front side. On the front side, the earth is hit by meteors coming toward it and may even overtake a few. On the back side, the meteors will not hit the earth unless they are travelling fast enough to catch up with it (Pasachoff, 1989, p. 555; Fredrick and Baker, 1981, p. 217; Smith and Jacobs, 1973, pp. 102, 104).

For the same reason, we have lots of bugs splatter on the windshields of our cars, but very few on the rear windows! The earth is moving through space.

Watch these two videos.




Their case is compelling. It isn't "kookiness", as you said, ggreg. Of course, it would appear kooky to the Science Establishment and everybody under its supervision, but what you said about Evolution also appears kooky to the vast majority of that establishment and those under its supervision.
You said that you can't imagine that it's possible for all of the people to be fooled all of the time. Well, not all people have been fooled. There has always been a tiny minority who dissented from Heliocentrism / Copernicanism, it's just that they've been bullied into a corner by a gigantic system which has also to gain by teaching our kids that they occupy a place of insignificant insignificance in the Universe. Think of 9/11 and how that has its dissenters form the mainstream view - it's just that those dissenters are more visible because it's much easier to dispute 9/11 than it is Copernicanism because Coperncanism is the foundation of Modern Society, and if you peel it away then the entire Modern World appears to be an enormous hoax. The belief in the Copernican model of the Universe is as basic to Modernism as God was to the Middle Ages.
The thing is, even if Dr. Sungenis's claim has a one-in-a-million chance of turning out to be true, he deserves all of our support because we have so much to gain if he's right.

Furthermore, what do you have to lose? The reason why most people will not even contemplate Geocentrism is because they are aware that it so contrary to everything the Modern World stands for and to the Science Establishment that is propping up that world. They don't want people to think that they are stupid. Just like in the Renaissance / early Enlightenment the atheists didn't want people to think they were stupid for saying that God does not exist, so they had to gradually wear away at it (first by saying that they are just asking questions / being skeptics, then by pointing out that the priesthood was not perfect in its rule, eventually they called themselves "Deists", etc.), but now moderns look back on the first "humanistic" and "rationalistic" thinkers like Erasmus as bold heroes and wondrous geniuses because they began the opposition to the "superstition" of their age. What do you have to lose, ggreg? Go into work tomorrow and tell everybody that you believe that the Earth is at the center of creation. What's the worst that could happen, that you're laughed at? Well being a believing Christian of any sort is a source of derision in much of the world today, so it isn't anything apart from what's ordinary. The fact that the Geocentric view is even plausible is enough for me to want to jump ship immediately from Copernicianism to Geocentrism - because the Geocentric view is so much more agreeable to everything that is Catholic. I'm willing even to play the fool here. I have nothing at all to lose from moving from Copernicanism to Geocentrism, and I have everything to gain. If that means I am to be out of alignment with the Modern World - well, that is pleasing to my ear, because to me Modernism is a sickness, and I don't mind at all being out of tune with my ill time. Dr. Sungenis, however, does have something to lose by putting himself out in public as somebody who supports Geocentricism. He exposes himself to ridicule in a way that you or I could not because the Science Establishment would not take any notice whatsoever of us in the first place. So that your first instinct is to dismiss him as a "kook" is gross imprudence on your part, because you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and it's just very silly to want to oppose a man who you could stand to benefit a great deal from.
We OUGHT to defy the Science Establishment at every opportunity, just like the humanists took every opportunity to publish a droll satire every time some mistake was made by members or a member of the Catholic Church. After all, isn't it the claim of the Scientists that they encourage opposing points of view and that they thrive off of discussion? If that's the case, then Dr. Sungenis should be featured in all of the greatest news stations and his film ought to be one of the most successful this year. Of course, that will not occur because the scientists have nothing to gain by people actually being skeptical and giving Geocentrism a fair assessment, because it would shame and embarrass them if they have been mistaken about this throughout the past centuries.