CathInfo.com

For the record, I am way closer to R&R (gave that as my answer on the recent survey) than to sede. But I think the issues are complex enough that I don't have any business telling people who come to a different conclusion than mine that they are wrong/heretics.

I have already been through many rounds of the quote game with happenby and Meg.  For those of you just tuning in, it goes like this:  I give a quote, FE gives a spurious objection, I explain why the objection is invalid, FE pretends I never gave a quote.  

Nor do I wish to see happenby's list of quotes again.  A large proportion don't even support flat earth but she ignores anyone who points that out or explains what they really mean to her.  Anyone explaining Meg and happenby's misunderstandings to them gets accused of spin and/or ignored.  

It is a waste of time to go through yet another iteration of this game with them.  I have provided quotes in the past.  Reasonable people can see that the quotes support my claims.  Even unreasonable people ought to be able to see that I have provided quotes.  I do not know why Meg is demanding that I provide quotes when she has already seen and discussed them

For the record, I am way closer to R&R (gave that as my answer on the recent survey) than to sede. But I think the issues are complex enough that I don't have any business telling people who come to a different conclusion than mine that they are wrong/heretics.

I have already been through many rounds of the quote game with happenby and Meg.  For those of you just tuning in, it goes like this:  I give a quote, FE gives a spurious objection, I explain why the objection is invalid, FE pretends I never gave a quote.  

Nor do I wish to see happenby's list of quotes again.  A large proportion don't even support flat earth but she ignores anyone who points that out or explains what they really mean to her.  Anyone explaining Meg and happenby's misunderstandings to them gets accused of spin and/or ignored.  

It is a waste of time to go through yet another iteration of this game with them.  I have provided quotes in the past.  Reasonable people can see that the quotes support my claims.  Even unreasonable people ought to be able to see that I have provided quotes.  I do not know why Meg is demanding that I provide quotes when she has already seen and discussed them

You have not provided quotes to prove the Church supports the globe.   

Stop acting like a baby, would you?

I looked at the video.  It's simply trying to show that the math of sun direction looks cleaner on a globe model vs. flat earth.  It's the same reasoning used to promote heliocentrism, that geocentric math is ugly compared to heliocentric.  In the video, the beams are shown as crossing over one another, but if you cut them off sooner, they generally converge into a triangle at some point.  So the way it's represented in the video makes it look uglier and nearly impossible, since once they converge at the triangle, then they take off in opposite directions, which would make a single light source impossible.  So cut off the arrows as soon as they converge, at a closer distance to the earth, and it's not quite as ugly as this video makes it out to be.  And this falls short of "proof" also.  Where's the hard proof?  Flat earthers could take this video as proof that the sun is much closer to the earth than science tells us.

.
Amazing. A reply! Complete with the insult, of course.
.
"They generally converge into a triangle at some point." How do you keep coming up with garbage like this? The lines of sight do not "converge" at all "into a triangle" or anything else. Are you crosseyed or just full of it? There is absolutely no convergence whatsoever. And what is this "triangle" nonsense? What would a triangle have to do with anything here? The observers are not arranged in a triangle and the sun isn't a triangle. What's most glaringly obvious is the views arranged all around the "flat" earth have directions splaying out like the spokes on a wheel. Where do they "converge" when they're headed in opposite directions?
.
So it looks "neater" and therefore deceptive, eh? Cut off the arrows as soon as they converge -- but they don't converge.
They're all over the place.
.
Here's another version of a similar challenge (equinox) -- one where no flat-earthers participated, even when they were invited.
Because flat-earthers don't want to be involved in actual empirical experiment.
"Those who are SEEKING THE TRUTH sure don't want to participate in finding it."
They only want to SAY they're involved (but that's a lie).
Only one measurement "converged" and the rest of them were way off the mark.
.

.