An article like this I give little credibility to because it's emotionally charged, repeatedly referring to flat earth "deception", "deception techniques", attempting to win over "the gullible into their cult".

I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.

All this has been covered, and more. Whether you believe it or not, it is a cohesive and well founded argument expounded upon as a whole in these threads. The information is verifiable and remains a tower against whatever spit wads you lob at it.  Not one of you globalists has offered anything but sporadic contentions, parroting anti-Catholic sentiments of the globalists. You offer a piece meal defense against a juggernaut of spiritual and physical truths. 100% of the time your claims are "no, it can't be that way" or "you're stupid", rather than explaining how you shamelessly promote what the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr globalists do. You literally sneer at information we've provided, but most importantly, you do it without consideration. 

Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.

This literally makes no sense. I stated that there is no proof whatsoever that FE is a Dogma of the Church. What would you like me to provide proof of? Those who claim that it's necessary for salvation need to provide proof. Claiming that merely the basic concept of FE is in Scripture with nothing explicit is not proof. There would need to be something from the Magisterium.

No one said it's necessary for salvation per se, but holding contradictory and unproven theories of the enemy won't save you either.

Did you read the other article linked to? It's about the horizon and making your own theodolite or buying one to conduct your own experiments. That one was pretty convincing as well.

No, I didn't read the other article.  But I am troubled by your finding the other one convincing "as well", suggesting that you find this one convincing in the first place.  It's clearly biased and based on a straw man argument regarding "vanishing point" ... vs. the visual convergence against the plane.  So it's mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon in order to debunk it.

 You are without excuse, too since Heliocentric globalism is without question the doctrine of the demonic Freemasons that you defend.  By itself, your pertinacious defense of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr "science" demonstrates said bias.  

Heliocentrism has nothing to do with this. Flat-earthers here have shown yourselves just as opposed to traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  If you were truly concerned with supporting the traditional Catholic view, you would take that position.  Instead, you defame Robert Sungenis, who does take it, and argue against all who support the traditional Catholic view.

Catholics reached a consensus on spherical earth by around 700 AD, maybe earlier if Cosmas was a heretic as some scholars claim.  The acceptance of a spherical earth was not challenged until heretics started a flat earth movement in the mid 1800s.  Later the movement started attracting pagans and even more recently some Catholics have joined in.

There is no good argument for considering flat-earthism to be the Catholic view and you are not defending Catholicism in any way.  Nor is science, in general, opposed to Catholicism.  For most of Western history, the Church was the main patron and promoter of science.  The secular aberration from this is a recent development and not something that I support or defend.

I have chosen neither position.  If I single out going after Neil's posts in particular, it's because the 5-page emotional rants surrounding one debatable piece of evidence annoy me.  I have already explained that I agree with you that the Church does not teach flat earth.  So you noticed wrong.  Theologically, I disagree with the flat earthers and have since the beginning.  Scientifically, I am undecided.  I have been weighing the evidence on both sides and currently find myself leaning in the direction of flat earth due to the evidence appearing to be stronger in that direction.

I have never applied the calmness of the parties involved to my "determin[ation of] which side is correct".  I'm having to distill actual evidence out from within the biased posts of many people.

While I agree that aspects of Neil's posts are problematic, why complain about him and say nothing about TruthisEternal, for example? 

Yes, some time ago, you did say that flat-earther claims about Church history and theology were incorrect, but I have not noticed you mention this lately.  I did explicitly use the word "lately" in my post.

It is good that you are distilling evidence from both sides, but you primarily, perhaps even exclusively, point out emotionalism on the part of globe earthers and not flat earthers.  Your comments are not proportional to the actual occurrence of the phenomenon.

Heliocentrism has nothing to do with this. Flat-earthers here have shown yourselves just as opposed to traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  If you were truly concerned with supporting the traditional Catholic view, you would take that position.  Instead, you defame Robert Sungenis, who does take it, and argue against all who support the traditional Catholic view.

Catholics reached a consensus on spherical earth by around 700 AD, maybe earlier if Cosmas was a heretic as some scholars claim.  The acceptance of a spherical earth was not challenged until heretics started a flat earth movement in the mid 1800s.  Later the movement started attracting pagans and even more recently some Catholics have joined in.

There is no good argument for considering flat-earthism to be the Catholic view and you are not defending Catholicism in any way.  Nor is science, in general, opposed to Catholicism.  For most of Western history, the Church was the main patron and promoter of science.  The secular aberration from this is a recent development and not something that I support or defend.

Ha ha.  Heliocentrism is the accepted model promoted by NASA and the general "scientific community" and has everything to do with this. Catholics have never "reached a consensus" on spherical earth!  But if you're going to say it, prove it.  Commentary from moderns who support geocentric spherical earth do not count, either.  We need proof from ancient times, arguments from the Fathers, from Scripture, from Catholics at the time (like we do with flat earth) that proves your claim.  Flat earth has more proofs by far than anything you're claiming because you're pretend proof comes from the snakes in the grass.    

Below is the basis for the argument. Seems pretty sound to me. Don't be troubled. Explain how this is mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon. Again, I don't care too much but let me know how I'm being duped by this article. Don't really want to argue. Unlike my enemies in this subforum, I'm not dogmatic about this so I'm not using too much brain power on it.

I explained why this is wrong several posts ago.  This has nothing to do with vanishing point.  Obviously parts of a ship will start to disappear BEFORE it reaches the vanishing point ... duh, because there would be nothing of the ship left to see at the vanishing point.  What happens is a visual convergence between the bottom of the ship and the plane beneath it after it gets a certain distance away.  This phenomenon has been well demonstrated and well docuмented.  Then, when you zoom in with a greater magnification, lo and behold, the bottom part of the ship magically reappears.  If it were hidden behind curvature, it could not reappear with increased zoom.  Consequently, the original phenomenon was optical in nature, a visual convergence between the bottom of the ship/boat and the plane beneath it.

Plus, lines like this are nonsense right out of Neil's playbook --

when it's clear to anyone who has watched small objects disappear into the distance

Clear how?  It's obvious that people can be fooled by optical illusions under certain circuмstances.  In fact, these same people who claim that it's clear to anyone who uses their senses that the earth must be round, are the first ones to hop up and down screaming "mirage" or "refraction" when an entire city's skyline is visible across a lake when it shouldn't be.