Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: kiwiboy on October 18, 2017, 02:57:16 PM
-
Following from the 1st proof given here https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/1st-proof-of-the-flat-earth-lasers-and-levels/
I give the 2nd proof of the flat earth...
Objects beyond the horizon
(from flatearthtrads.com)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_6f83b9b23129414fa6a1e485222f0861~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_424,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_6f83b9b23129414fa6a1e485222f0861~mv2.jpg)
Objects beyond the horizon
Both flat earthers and round earthers agree on the circuмference of the earth, approximately 25,000 miles.
If those 25000 miles form a ball, as we see in the NASA photos, then there must be a fixed rate at which it curves.
That rate of curvature is 8 inches per mile squared. This means that after the first mile it drops by 8 inches, the second 32, the third 6 feet, all the way down to 1.8 miles of a drop after 120 miles distance.
If the earth is a ball, then after a certain point looking straight out over the horizon, objects should start to disappear the further they go away.
In fact, we can calculate exactly when they should be beyond visibility, with various "earth curve calculators" available online, provided by people who have nothing to do with the flat earth.
The problem for globe earthers is that there are consistently objects visible that should not be visible. Historically, we have many examples of this, but closer to our day, with advances in widely available camera technology, people can see for themselves examples of this.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_6d4e06b95deb41a99e626ee5a7ea19e3~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_400,h_109,al_c,q_80/e43599_6d4e06b95deb41a99e626ee5a7ea19e3~mv2.jpg)
Here below we show snapshots of one of the best produced videos showing islands off the coast of California.
The photo is taken from over 30 miles away. With height of the camera there should be over 580 feet below the horizon.
The small islands should be completely gone and most of the large one, yet this is not what we see
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_f3f1f79515694355be61ebbe0a34bc31~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_319,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_f3f1f79515694355be61ebbe0a34bc31~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_297db6c779624223b835d6b1b62170d1~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_336,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_297db6c779624223b835d6b1b62170d1~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_4fab94e57a8142fe8fcb9bd15a36aa49~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_322,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_4fab94e57a8142fe8fcb9bd15a36aa49~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_6d9369b5c6fd4b839fac9cc387bad7e0~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_314,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_6d9369b5c6fd4b839fac9cc387bad7e0~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_1ec20350226349d08a806a7111f580b3~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_337,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_1ec20350226349d08a806a7111f580b3~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_6c3e21f6d7374377919418943f6d14d6~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_275,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_6c3e21f6d7374377919418943f6d14d6~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_ab101edc718548b6993a6ddf279141d9~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_315,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_ab101edc718548b6993a6ddf279141d9~mv2.png)
We'll let the video makers speak for themselves...
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_72fec1ccfbf1445d97f58aba186b6eb3~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_328,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_72fec1ccfbf1445d97f58aba186b6eb3~mv2.png)
Note also how steady and integral the picture is. This is important against those who try to claim that it is a mirage, or some kind of refraction.
If not upside down, a refracted image would not present itself with the same integrity and steadiness. The video shows this even better. (included below)
There are many more examples of this. You are encouraged to go to this link :
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
-
Where is the first proof?
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
-
In the first two lines of my post. The link I gave.
-
The rate of curvature is a very important thing to consider. I have yet to see the globe-earthers explain it.
To reiterate: As is stated in the O.P, if a round earth is about 25,000 miles in circuмference at its widest point, then there need to be a fixed rate at which it curves, which has been determined to be 8 inches per mile squared. This means that after the first mile it drops by 8 inches, the second mile 32 inches, and the third mile six feet, etc., until there's a 1.8 miles of a drop at 120 miles distant.
Do the globe-earthers dispute this? I would like to see them explain it, if they disagree.
The O.P. photo of the island is 20 miles distant from mainland California. Given the fixed rate of curvature, the island should not be visible. But it is visible. How do globe-earthers explain that?
We've all probably seen Islands from a mainland that aren't supposed to be visible, given the rate of curvature.
When my sons and I stayed at a farm B&B on the little Island of Berneray, just off the Island of North Uist in Scotland, we could see the Island of St. Kilda from the beach on Berneray. St. Kilda is about 48 to 50 miles away from Berneray. We shouldn't have been able to see St. Kilda at all, given the supposed rate of curvature on a "globe" earth. It just wouldn't be possible. Yet we could see it.
-
False premise:
1. the Earth isn't a sphere. (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=The+earth+isn%27t+a+sphere)
If you're going to be precise then be precise, including your representations of opposing views; while this seems to be a challenge for some, you can still try.
If you've already factored this in, then please clearly link such.
-
False premise:
1. the Earth isn't a sphere. (https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US752D20170824&p=The+earth+isn%27t+a+sphere)
If you're going to be precise then be precise, including your representations of opposing views; while this seems to be a challenge for some, you can still try.
If you've already factored this in, then please clearly link such.
What does your comment have to do with the O.P.? Did you even read the O.P.?
-
What does your comment have to do with the O.P.? Did you even read the O.P.?
Blessed Mother says the earth is a globe, did you ever read how she described the earth and designed the miraculous medal?
-
Blessed Mother says the earth is a globe, did you ever read how she described the earth and designed the miraculous medal?
Did you read the O.P., Myrna?
-
Not a premise, but a conclusion based on facts you wish to ignore. If 2+2=4 then why represent an opposing view that 2+2=5 (such as a ball earth)?
For crying out loud you can't even see that it not only can be, but is, both.
Carry on question begging though; that's how ya'll roll 9/10 times.
-
Excellent video on this topic
https://youtu.be/HpyaMoBzFy4 (https://youtu.be/HpyaMoBzFy4)
-
The Vandenberg launch last month was filmed y a news cchopper in Phoenix, 400 nm away.
That would not be possible if earth were a globe.
But, unsurprisingly not one glober responded. They would not touch it with a ten foot pole.
-
(https://thelifeinexile.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg)
Yes, I find these types of demonstrations very intriguing. How do proponents of globe earth explain this kind of thing? Is all this just faked?
It's this kind of thing which forces me to keep an open mind about flat earth.
-
Did you read the O.P., Myrna?
You know Meg, Scripture says to knock, seek and God will answer. Notice many of the globally indoctrinated REFUSE to ask, seek, knock or learn anything they don't already think they know. You're right, they are not reading our posts, except to find fault in some aspect of them long enough to respond. Hence, the tendency to miss the point of any given post which they do almost always. Once in a while someone will ask how something might work. That person must actually be reading. A commendable thing to do before responding.
-
(https://thelifeinexile.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg)
Yes, I find these types of demonstrations very intriguing. How do proponents of globe earth explain this kind of thing? Is all this just faked?
It's this kind of thing which forces me to keep an open mind about flat earth.
Nothing but crickets from the globers.
They are undone by a rocket launch and math.
-
So much for Neil's moon proof. Super short video proves earth's shadow doesn't cause eclipses.
https://youtu.be/JXqGF0VsOsw
-
Can any proponents of globe earth explain why objects can be seen from miles away when curvature should take them out of sight?
I don't want to hear about refraction ... because that's an unusual phenomenon that depends on having a perfect storm set of atmospheric conditions.
-
Where is the first proof?
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
I find most of these unconvincing.
-
Can any proponents of globe earth explain why objects can be seen from miles away when curvature should take them out of sight?
I don't want to hear about refraction ... because that's an unusual phenomenon that depends on having a perfect storm set of atmospheric conditions.
There is a discussion here which suggests that refraction should not be dismissed so easily: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/ (https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/)
-
There is a discussion here which suggests that refraction should not be dismissed so easily: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/ (https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/)
They are all scratching their heads and grasping at straws. Nothing here to debunk the flat earth. Everyone can go home.
-
There is a discussion here which suggests that refraction should not be dismissed so easily: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/ (https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/)
can you explain then in your own words, precisely what is it that cannot be dismissed so easily?
-
can you explain then in your own words, precisely what is it that cannot be dismissed so easily?
I got the impression from the discussion that refraction is more common than Ladislaus suggested. There were also some other ideas that I thought he might find interesting. For example, they were talking about concave earth models as well as flat earth.
-
There is a discussion here which suggests that refraction should not be dismissed so easily: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/ (https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/)
I've found most of the stuff on metabunk to be unconvincing ... clearly people trying to come up with SOMEthing, anything to explain this away.
Some of the videos were of small objects just 3-6 miles away and yet close enough where atmospheric conditions were not present for refraction to be possible.
-
Mr Garrison finds concave earth interesting but not Biblical flat earth.
-
Can any proponents of globe earth explain why objects can be seen from miles away when curvature should take them out of sight?
I don't want to hear about refraction ... because that's an unusual phenomenon that depends on having a perfect storm set of atmospheric conditions.
It's mostly poor approximations and taking every case where there's an uncertainty as favorably as possible for the result you want. I've broken down a couple of these in previous posts and shown that they are entirely in line with what you expect with the assumed rate of curvature of the earth. I can do this particular one if you want.
Edit: noticed after posting that there's several different videos in the original post. Pick one, post the youtube video or whatever here, and I'll run the numbers.
-
It's mostly poor approximations and taking every case where there's an uncertainty as favorably as possible for the result you want. I've broken down a couple of these in previous posts and shown that they are entirely in line with what you expect with the assumed rate of curvature of the earth. I can do this particular one if you want.
Edit: noticed after posting that there's several different videos in the original post. Pick one, post the youtube video or whatever here, and I'll run the numbers.
There is no curvature to the earth at all.
-
.
You have missed your chance yesterday to check the angle between the sun and the quarter moon.
-
The rate of curvature is a very important thing to consider. I have yet to see the globe-earthers explain it.
To reiterate: As is stated in the O.P, if a round earth is about 25,000 miles in circuмference at its widest point, then there need to be a fixed rate at which it curves, which has been determined to be 8 inches per mile squared. This means that after the first mile it drops by 8 inches, the second mile 32 inches, and the third mile six feet, etc., until there's a 1.8 miles of a drop at 120 miles distant.
Do the globe-earthers dispute this? I would like to see them explain it, if they disagree.
The O.P. photo of the island is 20 miles distant from mainland California. Given the fixed rate of curvature, the island should not be visible. But it is visible. How do globe-earthers explain that?
We've all probably seen Islands from a mainland that aren't supposed to be visible, given the rate of curvature.
When my sons and I stayed at a farm B&B on the little Island of Berneray, just off the Island of North Uist in Scotland, we could see the Island of St. Kilda from the beach on Berneray. St. Kilda is about 48 to 50 miles away from Berneray. We shouldn't have been able to see St. Kilda at all, given the supposed rate of curvature on a "globe" earth. It just wouldn't be possible. Yet we could see it.
Meg,
You and kiwiboy (as gtbe) were there last year (24 April 2017) on ABLF3 when I debunked that video mentioned in the OP. Both you and kiwiboy simply ignored my reply and changed the argument to "scripture says so, the ancients said so, etc..".
Why are you asking now for someone to explain all this to you again? Is it going to make any difference the second time around, or will you ask the same questions again this time next year?
I am more than happy to answer these and any other questions you may have, but I have the impression that I'm simply wasting my time.
When you ask these flat/globe earth question on a Catholic forum, and you find that nobody answers, then there are two possible reasons for this:
1. Nobody knows the answer, which btw still does not prove that the answer doesn't exist, or that your opinion is correct. You know the saying "in the land of the blind the one-eyed is king"?
2. Nobody is interested in answering you (for whatever reason, but probably because they know it won't make any difference).
I'll let you choose which of the two categories people on CathInfo fall into, but as for myself, I consider myself in number 2, although recently I have become interested in answering a few of these arguments, for the simple reason that I believe this flat earth nonsense is reflecting very poorly on the Resistance. So, for the sake of keeping the Resistance a little respectable, I am happy to answer your questions once more.
Give a me a few days and I will put together a detailed reply to the video mentioned in the OP.
-
Can any proponents of globe earth explain why objects can be seen from miles away when curvature should take them out of sight?
I don't want to hear about refraction ... because that's an unusual phenomenon that depends on having a perfect storm set of atmospheric conditions.
Ladislaus,
As I mentioned to Meg, in a few days time I will post a detailed reply to the video in the OP.
Meanwhile, if you have any pictures/videos you think seem hard to explain, feel free to post theme here. I promise you, if anyone will want to go down the refraction road to explain their theory it will be the flat earthers.
-
https://youtu.be/TTP9i1mUDHM
-
I got the impression from the discussion that refraction is more common than Ladislaus suggested. There were also some other ideas that I thought he might find interesting. For example, they were talking about concave earth models as well as flat earth.
ok. But be more precise.
How exactly does it disprove anything of the videos posted so far?
The concave earth is nonsense. Another theory to discredit the flat earth.
-
ok. But be more precise.
How exactly does it disprove anything of the videos posted so far?
The concave earth is nonsense. Another theory to discredit the flat earth.
I never watch the videos so I have no idea how it relates to them. Ladislaus described refraction as very rare and it was a discussion that seemed to consider more conditions for refraction than he was allowing for.
I don't watch the videos because:
1. I am not interested in the science aspects of the issue
2. I don't trust them. Anything can be faked in a video.
3. Even if there were an observable phenomenon or two that seemed better explained by a flat earth, there is no consensus on a coherent model that explains all the observations.
4. Most of the flat earth proponents whom I have seen seen discussing theology and history have been consistently wrong, so I do not expect them to understand science any better.
-
I never watch the videos so I have no idea how it relates to them. Ladislaus described refraction as very rare and it was a discussion that seemed to consider more conditions for refraction than he was allowing for.
I don't watch the videos because:
1. I am not interested in the science aspects of the issue
2. I don't trust them. Anything can be faked in a video.
3. Even if there were an observable phenomenon or two that seemed better explained by a flat earth, there is no consensus on a coherent model that explains all the observations.
4. Most of the flat earth proponents whom I have seen seen discussing theology and history have been consistently wrong, so I do not expect them to understand science any better.
The purpose of the videos is to show that the earth cannot be of the fixed circuмference that globers say it is. It is different from the proposition of a certain flat earth model.
The only way for globers to get out of this is to claim that the earth is way bigger than it is. But because they have provided images and other so-called proofs, they can't do this.
You should distrust videos if you have reason to trust them. Discounting them on the basis that you don't like what they say is irrelevant. You can go test it for yourself anyway, which is the beauty of flat earth.
The reason you think flat earthers don't understand science or scripture is because presume the earth is round. You don't have an open mind.
-
The reason you think flat earthers don't understand science or scripture is because presume the earth is round. You don't have an open mind.
I do not expect them to understand science because they do not understand Scripture. The evidence that they do not understand Scripture has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. They do not understand what the Church teaches about exegesis or even what is meant by the literal sense of Scripture. They do not know how much weight to give interpretations from the Fathers. Some of them do not even seem to understand the distinction between canonical and apocryphal writings.
Not only are they wrong about this sort of thing, they will not accept correction when told they are wrong. They are the ones with closed minds, rejecting the actual Catholic approach to Scripture in order to adopt one that better supports their belief in a flat earth. Their posts are full of logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and name-calling. They show themselves incapable of critical thinking almost every time they write. I have no reason to think they are capable of recognizing a sound science argument when they see one. Their only criterion for accepting an observation or argument is whether it supports flat earth. All of this remains true no matter what shape the earth is.
-
I do not expect them to understand science because they do not understand Scripture. The evidence that they do not understand Scripture has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. They do not understand what the Church teaches about exegesis or even what is meant by the literal sense of Scripture. They do not know how much weight to give interpretations from the Fathers. Some of them do not even seem to understand the distinction between canonical and apocryphal writings.
Not only are they wrong about this sort of thing, they will not accept correction when told they are wrong. They are the ones with closed minds, rejecting the actual Catholic approach to Scripture in order to adopt one that better supports their belief in a flat earth. Their posts are full of logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and name-calling. They show themselves incapable of critical thinking almost every time they write. I have no reason to think they are capable of recognizing a sound science argument when they see one. Their only criterion for accepting an observation or argument is whether it supports flat earth. All of this remains true no matter what shape the earth is.
Jaynek,
You are spot on with that statement : "I have no reason to think they are capable of recognizing a sound science argument when they see one". They are incapable indeed, and at some point we are going to have to stop trying to make them see, it just won't work. You can push their nose into the facts, and still they will refuse to be corrected. They just start calling you "a troll", because you spoil their fantasies.
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man contend with a fool, whether he be angry, or laugh, he shall find no rest."
Can you see how I find it embarrassing that so many Trads reportedly are falling into the flat earth nonsense? It reflects very poorly on all the others and it undermines not only the flat earth nonsense itself, but also all the rest they supposedly stand for, i.e. the Resistance.
If I was moderator here, I would have banned these fools long ago.
In your posts on the other hand I have witnessed far more logic and common sense than I have seen from all the flat earthers put together, and then some. Good on you!
-
Jaynek,
You are spot on with that statement : "I have no reason to think they are capable of recognizing a sound science argument when they see one". They are incapable indeed, and at some point we are going to have to stop trying to make them see, it just won't work. You can push their nose into the facts, and still they will refuse to be corrected. They just start calling you "a troll", because you spoil their fantasies.
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man contend with a fool, whether he be angry, or laugh, he shall find no rest."
Can you see how I find it embarrassing that so many Trads reportedly are falling into the flat earth nonsense? It reflects very poorly on all the others and it undermines not only the flat earth nonsense itself, but also all the rest they supposedly stand for, i.e. the Resistance.
If I was moderator here, I would have banned these fools long ago.
In your posts on the other hand I have witnessed far more logic and common sense than I have seen from all the flat earthers put together, and then some. Good on you!
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
Jaynek,
You see what I mean? When the only answer you get is a stupid grin, what else is there to say?
Some people suspect it is the Menzingen shills who regularly and persistently infiltrate the Resistance forums in order to distract them, to sow division, to waste their time, to make them look stupid, etc..
I am starting to believe it. There is no other charitable explanation.
If only a moderator would kick them out. I'm all for intelligent discussions, but this is something quite different.
-
Jaynek,
You see what I mean? When the only answer you get is a stupid grin, what else is there to say?
Some people suspect it is the Menzingen shills who regularly and persistently infiltrate the Resistance forums in order to distract them, to sow division, to waste their time, to make them look stupid, etc..
I am starting to believe it. There is no other charitable explanation.
If only a moderator would kick them out. I'm all for intelligent discussions, but this is something quite different.
You can beat yourself up all you desire, God will never turn the flat earth into a sphere. I have God on my side.
-
Meg, Ladislaus, Jaynek,
I believe you're the only serious ones left here, so if you would like to further discuss the flat earth with me I'd be more than happy to do so by email (via tradidi.com). This forum is useless and I won't waste any more time on it.
-
Meg, Ladislaus, Jaynek,
I believe you're the only serious ones left here, so if you would like to further discuss the flat earth with me I'd be more than happy to do so by email (via tradidi.com). This forum is useless and I won't waste any more time on it.
I realize that it may be frustrating for you to debate with TiE. I have the impression that TiE thinks it's futile to debate details with globe earthers. I know that I'm coming round to that conclusion myself.
For me, for instance, trying to debate with Jayne is an exercise in frustration. She believes she knows everything there is to know, and that's all there is to it. Except that she's a convert (like me) and maybe there is something she can learn. She is intractable, and a know-it-all, and thinks she's superior, as Jews often think of themselves as superior to everyone else. They can't seem to help it.
I probably won't be debating the subject much here anymore. And there are too many FE threads anyway. It shouldn't take over the forum.
I might contact you on your website in the future, regarding FE.
-
Ladislaus,
As I mentioned to Meg, in a few days time I will post a detailed reply to the video in the OP.
Meanwhile, if you have any pictures/videos you think seem hard to explain, feel free to post theme here. I promise you, if anyone will want to go down the refraction road to explain their theory it will be the flat earthers.
Hopefully I can find your reply ... since you said you won't post it here.
-
I realize that it may be frustrating for you to debate with TiE. I have the impression that TiE thinks it's futile to debate details with globe earthers. I know that I'm coming round to that conclusion myself.
For me, for instance, trying to debate with Jayne is an exercise in frustration. She believes she knows everything there is to know, and that's all there is to it. Except that she's a convert (like me) and maybe there is something she can learn. She is intractable, and a know-it-all, and thinks she's superior, as Jews often think of themselves as superior to everyone else. They can't seem to help it.
I probably won't be debating the subject much here anymore. And there are too many FE threads anyway. It shouldn't take over the forum.
I might contact you on your website in the future, regarding FE.
There never was a debate with TiE (or any other other flat earthers) , and that's the problem. For a debate both sides need to listen and respond to each other's arguments.
Whether you agree with Jayne or not, at least you have to admit that she is always responding to the arguments, unlike the flat earthers here.
With regards to the (Menzingen?) trolls here, at least they are doing their job. That's what they come here for, and that's what they achieved. But the moderator's job is to enable a climate where people are able to intelligently discuss things, without being prevented from doing so by those trolls. And for some reason the moderators here are not doing that job. A forum without decent moderation is utterly useless. On the contrary, it reflects very poorly on the group this forum is supposed to represent and defend.
I invite you to seriously question the flat earth theories, as well as the people behind it, their tactics, and their results. Don't just take anyone's word for it simply because it "sounds" or "feels" plausible. Remember how the devil managed to talk Eve into taking that first bite? He knows quite well how to paint a nice picture (i.e. a lie). And especially today (remember Pope Leo XIII's vision) the devil has many arrows up his bow, but at the end of the day, he is like a chained dog: he cannot bite you unless you get too close to him. It's up to you how close you want to get. You have a free will.
-
For me, for instance, trying to debate with Jayne is an exercise in frustration. She believes she knows everything there is to know, and that's all there is to it. Except that she's a convert (like me) and maybe there is something she can learn. She is intractable, and a know-it-all, and thinks she's superior, as Jews often think of themselves as superior to everyone else. They can't seem to help it.
There are a great many things that I do not know. I try to avoid giving my opinions on them. (It is a practice I recommend.) There have been many posts in which I have explicitly expressed that my knowledge is limited and many threads in which I have said nothing at all.
I am quite prepared to listen to those who seem to know what they are talking about. Very few of the flat earth proponents here fall in that category. How much attention would one pay to a person who said that Vatican II was the greatest council in the history of the Church? That is the level of ignorance I am seeing.
What I find frustrating about Meg is her apparent inability to discuss ideas. She consistently ignores these, instead making personal attacks, either on her opponents or on the sources that do not support her.
-
There never was a debate with TiE (or any other other flat earthers) , and that's the problem. For a debate both sides need to listen and respond to each other's arguments.
Whether you agree with Jayne or not, at least you have to admit that she is always responding to the arguments, unlike the flat earthers here.
With regards to the (Menzingen?) trolls here, at least they are doing their job. That's what they come here for, and that's what they achieved. But the moderator's job is to enable a climate where people are able to intelligently discuss things, without being prevented from doing so by those trolls. And for some reason the moderators here are not doing that job. A forum without decent moderation is utterly useless. On the contrary, it reflects very poorly on the group this forum is supposed to represent and defend.
I invite you to seriously question the flat earth theories, as well as the people behind it, their tactics, and their results. Don't just take anyone's word for it simply because it "sounds" or "feels" plausible. Remember how the devil managed to talk Eve into taking that first bite? He knows quite well how to paint a nice picture (i.e. a lie). And especially today (remember Pope Leo XIII's vision) the devil has many arrows up his bow, but at the end of the day, he is like a chained dog: he cannot bite you unless you get too close to him. It's up to you how close you want to get. You have a free will.
You seem to make the assumption that the flat-earthers have not debated the subject or presented their views, but you are fairly new to the debate, isn't that correct?
-
Don't feed Samuel the troll, Meg.
He followed kiwi here from another board just to troll him.
-
In the first two lines of my post. The link I gave.
My favorite over the horizon proof is the photos of Chicago from across Lake Michgan 59 miles away.
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi
-
Don't feed Samuel the troll, Meg.
He followed kiwi here from another board just to troll him.
Okay. That makes sense. But it isn't fair of him to say that FE'ers do not debate (which absolutely isn't true), and that we are just trolls from Menzingen. And then he of course mentions the devil and Pope Leo's vision, and somehow equates FE'ers with that. He tends to over-react. Not much different from Theologian Jayne, who said that I was promoting evil with FE.
-
Okay. That makes sense. But it isn't fair of him to say that FE'ers do not debate (which absolutely isn't true), and that we are just trolls from Menzingen. And then he of course mentions the devil and Pope Leo's vision, and somehow equates FE'ers with that. He tends to over-react. Not much different from Theologian Jayne, who said that I was promoting evil with FE.
Why take seriously anything said by Samuel or Mr. Garrison?
They have insufficient love for truth.
-
You seem to make the assumption that the flat-earthers have not debated the subject or presented their views, but you are fairly new to the debate, isn't that correct?
Meg,
Please do yourself a favor.
1. Read this simple explanation I posted here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what's-your-best-argument-for-a-flat-earth/msg593832/#msg593832) yesterday on CI.
2.a. If you agree with my explanation, say so now.
2.b. If you do not agree, say so now.
2.c. If you don't understand it, say so now.
3. Then look at the reactions of the flat earthers.
Do you think that is being honest? Has my effort been useful? Was it worth my time? Is that what you call "debating"?
I do not assume that flat earthers don't debate, I know it and I have proven it, more than once, the first time being nearly a year ago. You may be happy to ignore what you see with your own eyes and just take anyone else's word for it instead, but I am not.
It is scary to see how easily you (and others) are being led astray. A few simple posts and you're back in their net, agreeing with them. Tell me, what else can I possibly do, except leave you all to it?
-
Okay. That makes sense. But it isn't fair of him to say that FE'ers do not debate (which absolutely isn't true), and that we are just trolls from Menzingen. And then he of course mentions the devil and Pope Leo's vision, and somehow equates FE'ers with that. He tends to over-react. Not much different from Theologian Jayne, who said that I was promoting evil with FE.
No Meg, I did not say that you are a troll from Menzingen, but you are being led by them. And I am not absolutely sure that these trolls are sent by Menzingen, but I am absolutely sure that there are such trolls working for Menzingen, and I suspect some of these flat earthers are among them.
The only alternative to this is that some of these flat earthers are simply the most dishonest and dumb people I have ever met. But I thought is was more charitable to assume they were doing this on purpose, rather than out of sheer dishonesty and stupidity.
Btw, I know kiwiboy quite well and I know he is a good Catholic. But he is not being honest, although I believe his dishonesty is not malicious/intentional. He's just too absorbed into flat earth and has probably gone too far down this road to turn back now. It takes a lot of courage to admit you've been chasing a mirage for so long. He'll find out one day, hopefully before he leads too many others astray.
-
I do not assume that flat earthers don't debate, I know it and I have proven it, more than once, the first time being nearly a year ago. You may be happy to ignore what you see with your own eyes and just take anyone else's word for it instead, but I am not.
It is scary to see how easily you (and others) are being led astray. A few simple posts and you're back in their net, agreeing with them. Tell me, what else can I possibly do, except leave you all to it?
What makes you think I just take anyone's word for it, as if I haven't done any research into FE myself, independent of anything that Catholic FE'ers have said?
You disagree that the earth is flat. Well, you're not the only one. What makes you so different than all of the others arrogant trads who want to disprove a flat earth? Do you believe that you have special insight into the matter? Well, get in line, because you aren't the only globe-earther here who thinks that they are special.
-
What makes you think I just take anyone's word for it, as if I haven't done any research into FE myself, independent of anything that Catholic FE'ers have said?
You disagree that the earth is flat. Well, you're not the only one. What makes you so different than all of the others arrogant trads who want to disprove a flat earth? Do you believe that you have special insight into the matter? Well, get in line, because you aren't the only globe-earther here who thinks that they are special.
E V I D E N C E
-
E V I D E N C E
Oh, so you have SPECIAL evidence that no other globe-earther has yet shown.
-
Oh, so you have SPECIAL evidence that no other globe-earther has yet shown.
No, I have SIMPLE evidence that ALL flat earthers (including YOU) ignore.
-
No, I have SIMPLE evidence that ALL flat earthers (including YOU) ignore.
You mean...disagree with.
You think that you can amaze FE'ers with your evidence, as if it hasn't been presented before.
I'm outta here.
-
You mean...disagree with.
No, I mean ignore.
I'll prove it to you (again):
1. Do you, Meg, agree or disagree with the explanation I posted here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what's-your-best-argument-for-a-flat-earth/msg593832/#msg593832) on CI yesterday?
2. And if you disagree, I do hope you have a reason for it. Please state that reason here and now, or else, forever hold your peace (in other words, ignore the evidence).
-
Meg,
Please do yourself a favor.
1. Read this simple explanation I posted here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what's-your-best-argument-for-a-flat-earth/msg593832/#msg593832) yesterday on CI.
2.a. If you agree with my explanation, say so now.
2.b. If you do not agree, say so now.
2.c. If you don't understand it, say so now.
3. Then look at the reactions of the flat earthers.
Do you think that is being honest? Has my effort been useful? Was it worth my time? Is that what you call "debating"?
I do not assume that flat earthers don't debate, I know it and I have proven it, more than once, the first time being nearly a year ago. You may be happy to ignore what you see with your own eyes and just take anyone else's word for it instead, but I am not.
It is scary to see how easily you (and others) are being led astray. A few simple posts and you're back in their net, agreeing with them. Tell me, what else can I possibly do, except leave you all to it?
I have no idea what kind of evidence you think this is. Based on your own math, objects 30 miles away would have to be more than 600 feet tall in order to be seen (assuming that both the observer and the target object are at sea level). There are many of experiments which defy this math.
-
I have no idea what kind of evidence you think this is. Based on your own math, objects 30 miles away would have to be more than 600 feet tall in order to be seen (assuming that both the observer and the target object are at sea level). There are many of experiments which defy this math.
If there are many, surely you can show me one?
-
Please Meg stop engaging him.
He is a fool who does not understand that each and every flat earther here arrived at that conclusion independently on their own.
-
If there are many, surely you can show me one?
I did.
Reply #47
You IGNORED it.
-
Hopefully I can find your reply ... since you said you won't post it here.
Ladislaus,
Here is my reply: http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-anacapa (http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-anacapa)
PS : You will not find this article on the front page, as I find this flat earth nonsense too embarrassing for the Resistance.
-
Excellent video on this topic
https://youtu.be/HpyaMoBzFy4 (https://youtu.be/HpyaMoBzFy4)
Hello St. Patrick,
I was surprised and sorry to see you too are taken in by this flat earth hoax. So I decided to give you a present in response to that "excellent video" (with the horrible "music"):
http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-rowbotham-utah