CathInfo.com

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is.
For us it is much greater.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

Honest people reading; don't fall for this trickery. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/

.
Where to begin, where to begin -- how about the beginning?

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is. 
For us it is much greater. 

.
Almost all? Well there you go -- when it comes to logic and reason, you have to be 100% accurate, so "almost all" is inadequate. Besides, my "different notion" is irrelevant when it comes to objective observation.  Facts are facts, and I'm sticking to facts here.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

.
No, explanations for the stars, based on objective observations, are objective observations, not theories. Your next "sentence" is not a sentence ("Based on the presumption that the earth is flat." - not a sentence, so I have no idea what you're trying to say there.) Pointing out inaccuracies in statements that are easily shown to be fallacious are perhaps strange to someone who illogically believes in their fallacy. 

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

.
As for making you look stupid, you don't need any help. If you check your posts with Preview before you send them you can avoid being incomprehensible, which see. 

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

.
I beg to differ. The website to which you refer, the flatearthtards forum , is not credible for many objective reasons. For starters, they claim to be in accord with Bishop Richard Williamson, but he has never voiced any approval or agreement with flat-earthism. So that's a big, fat lie, i.e., not credible. Secondly, a large portion of their posts make unsupported claims such as "the horizon always rises to the level of the viewer," which is false. The horizon remains where it is, and a line of sight directs its view to wherever it will, even straight up, for example. The horizon does not rise to straight up, does it? Or, in the area called "Flat Earth Proofs" contains no proofs whatsoever. One video used for "proof" has a guy running around on the side of a hill with a topography map, without any compass nor demonstration that he is aware of magnetic declination or how to use it, and no awareness of what the actual location he occupies on the map. He says he took a trail off the road, presuming that an unmarked trail is the one he sees drawn on the map without any mileage or estimated mileage from a known monument to the head of the trail. He then describes wandering uphill and downhill off the trail in an attempt to get a view of the mountain peaks in the distance that he supposes are those shown on his topo map. The elevation to which he refers is the top of the peak above him but he has no idea in fact of how many feet above him this peak is because he has not walked up there nor has he employed any reasonable means of measuring his elevation decline to the place where he's at. 

Do you want more?

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

.
There's unlikely anyone "tuning in now," just as there are practically no readers at the said forum. So when have I been "shown up to be wrong?" Please be specific, if you can. 

Again, you don't need any help showing your stupidity. You're doing a great job all on your own.

.

Neil,
you are becoming quite pedantic at this point.

- you have not answered Mw's question about the experiment. What is it meant to prove?

-Flat Earth trads website never claims nor even implies that Bishop Williamson is flat earth.

-The horizon is suppose to descend on a ball earth as you ascend. Common sense tells us that. But you wish to deny that.

- "tuning in" was in reference to cathinfo and not flatearthtrads

- for nearly the 20th time, you were shown up wrong by not answering where hudnreds of feet came from on the mountain in a video which has been shown multiple times on this and other threads. There are other examples but that is the most important, because it is the base of the flat earth proof.

- Perspective is simply a description of the reality. It doesn't even need to be proven. Because we know the earth to be flat, and yet objects to be there, the way we explain it is by perspective. It doesn't make sense to you because you believe the earth to be round. I use BELIEVE in the true sense because you have no evidence for it. We see the earth to be flat.