Yeti and QvD.

Let's establish on whom is the burden of proof:

But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.

~ Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus

What's the literal meaning of these verses: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-firmament/msg842170/

All the Church Fathers believed in the firmament, the Earth shaped like a tabernacle or something similar.

All of the ancient peoples assumed the Earth was flat because, well, it looks flat.




You are unjustly shifting the burden of proof. I can draw up a banana shaped Earth and explain away the inconsistencies by summoning a force called dipravity which curves light in a way to make everything look flat but it's actually banana shaped. If your burden of proof theory was correct, we would all have to assume the Earth is banana shaped until you construct a perfect model.

So, since we established the literal meaning is the assumed one and the Church Fathers and common sense agree on the obvious shape of the Earth, what is your proof the Earth is a globe?

Please provide your proofs which enlightened freemasons, satanists and modernists "discovered". Thank God for all those masons otherwise we wouldn't know the shape of the Earth LOL. Too bad God didn't reveal such a thing to us, right?

Anyway, looking forward to your proofs.

.

I agree. There is no such thing as a FE model at all. All we have is a vague image showing the continents and their position relative to each other. But no flat earther has ever attempted, as far as I know, to draw a map actually drawn to scale of what they claim the earth to be, for the simple reason that such a map is impossible as it would not reflect the known distances between any two points on this earth.

This is what a map looks like. If there is any FE map of the earth in a format even remotely resembling this, and drawn to scale, I want to see it immediately.

You also know very little about it.  FEs generally adhere to the Gleason map.  Gleason himself stated that it's accurate.  Most Globers shoot from the hip and throw strawmen out there because they haven't actually researched the subject but merely regurgitate the Glober talking points.

If this here is accurate, as they claim ...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg/1200px-Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg

Then on a North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant projection, the bottom part of South America would get progressively wider as it gets closer to the "South Pole", and the southern half of the continent would be as wide if not wider that the norther half, as the North Polar Equidistance Projection would distort and widen it.  Yet North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant RETAINS the proportions of the continent all the way from North to South.  That is simply a mathematical / geometric impossibility.

Here's Galls-Peters, which claims to be accurate.


Now, here's North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant --


You see how Northern parts of South America and Africa are wider than the Southern parts.  On a North Polar Az Equi, they should be much wider at the south.

By contrast, have a look at a South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map and see how it distorts the Northern Hemisphere --


Why doesn't the same type of distortion happen with the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Map?  It absolutely SHOULD.

It doesn't because the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map actually reflects REALITY.

With regard to map, please see this post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/confidence-in-earth's-shape/msg840026/#msg840026

Fact that the North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant Map is very recognizable (vs. all the other Azimuthals distorting the shape of the earth so that it's unrecognizable) suggests that Gleason (North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant) is the closest to reality.

One objection is that Africa, South America, and Australia are "too big".  No they're not, actually.  That's based on the Mercator projection that everyone's been programmed/brainwashed with.  Galls-Peters came up with a projection they claim shows the ACCURATE size of the continents (whereas with Mercator the Northern Hemisphere continents were exaggerated) and on that projection the continent sizes match those of Gleason.  This is very solid evidence for Gleason being the correct map.  If Gleason were NOT correct, the Southern Hemisphere continents would be MUCH larger on a North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map, and the Souther Tip of South America for instance, would be much "fatter" and would be nearly as wide as the top.  Same with Africa.

I'll do the math here when I have the time, but there's no doubt Gleason reflects reality.

People drive across and around Australia, the USA, and Europe all of the time. The distances are accurate.

21:38 - 35:50

Second Argument:  Fake Photographs
Conclusion:  DuBay and FE

Dr. Sungenis arguments were terrible.  1) FEs don't have a picture of a Flat Earth.  Well, his buddy Neil de Grasse Tyson says you can't see curvature at 120,000 feet.  Since the highest amateur balloons can go is about that altitude, how are FEs supposed to obtain a picture of FE?  Of course Neil de Grasse Tyson was lying ... to explain away the 120,000-foot amateur balloons that clearly show no drop in the horizon line, where it should be very noticeable at that altitude.  2) Sungenis tries to explain away the obvious Photoshopped repetition of identical cloud patterns as due to the difficulty of stitching together strips of satellie data from multiple passes ... ignoring the fact that some of the identical clouds appear halfway around the "globe" and cannot be explained.

Here Sungenis doesn't even go into the main argument of his book, where he conceded one instance of NASA Photoshopping but said that this doesn't prove that NASA lies about all photos (also a fallacious argument).  Here he's  claiming (in so many words) that the NASA photos are all real and legitimate (and argument he can't win).  So which one is it?  What he said in his book or what he's saying now?  He gratuitiously asserts that the one or two (in the history of space programs) photos that claim to be direct picture of globe earth are real, but these have all been debunked as fakes.

So the elephant in the room that Sungenis tries to skirt is WHY NASA would create all these fake photos.  That's really the crux of DuBay's point, but Sungenis never actually addresses it here.

In point of fact, there's tons of photographic evidence, including from J Tolan, who put together tons of infrared photos (and he could see "too far" in every single one of them) and ran them through photogrammetry software (which is known to be highly accurate), and the software produced a perfectly flat earth from the input images.  So there's PLENTY of photographic evidence out there in support of FE, which Sungenis doesn't really address.  In fairness, he doesn't have time here to go into every one of them, but his arguments are weak and simply assume that they're all real (or that the vast majority of them are real) when the opposite has clearly been proven by FEs.

Well Lad, to your credit at least you made it systematically up to the 35:50 mark of the 2 hour and 4 minute video. Hoping that you could continue in the same manner, but I see that the thread just broke down into the usual FE verbiage after your systematic coverage.

Now that there is a FE map you'll vouch for, we can see the continents are too far apart.

A flight from Taipei to LAX is about 6,800 mi and takes about 12 hrs. Its flight path on the FlightAware real time tracker has an arc to it going "up" as it will for both FE and GE.

A flight from Johannesburg to Sydney is about 6,800 mi and takes about 12 hrs. Its flight path on the FlightAware real time tracker has an arc that goes down. On the Gleason map this distance should be double and the arc should take the flight "up" over India and even China but the real time tracker has the arc going "down" almost to Antartica. The flight path on the tracker doesn't even go over Australia itself because its shorter not to. 

These flights are tickets you can buy and flights you can track.

Lads, draw that flight plan on your South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant map and you'll see that arc is a straight line from JNB to SYN and that only works on a globe.

The flight plan is attached as I don't know how to put pictures in posts.

I hope I've helped,
JoeZ

Lad, you constantly try to imply, if not out-rightly express, your contention that NASA and Sungenis are two sides of the same coin.  That is an extreme oversimplification of the truth.

I've never said that.  Yet Dr. Sungenis backs NASA strongly against FE.  He thinks that nearly everything from NASA is legit and real ... except for the non-geocetrist stuff.  He cited one example of what he minimized as "foible" from NASA in his book, and in this latest video he makes no criticism of NASA whatsoever and asserts that their videos and pictures are to be taken at face value ... as proof of a globe earth.

.

Fair enough, my friend. I wouldn't exactly call this a map in the sense of the image I linked above, but I guess it's better than the cartoonish images we had before.

Let's see. Australia is represented as being much longer in length then the United States, I would say close to 2.5x the length, east to west (in the globe map).

Let's look up what those distances actually are. The United States is 3,000 miles long, and Australia is roughly 2,500 miles long. According to the Gleason map, if the United States is 3,000 miles east to west (and it is, in reality), Australia should be roughly 7,000 miles long east to west.

Australia is in fact the one anomaly on the Gleason map where it appears to be significantly wider than we've come to believe from Mercator maps.  Now, it's a fair bit wider on the Galls-Peters.  So that would require some investigation.  One would have to go down there.  And, who knows?, perhaps Gleason was off about Australia.  But it would appear to me mathematically impossible for Africa and South America to have retained their proportions on such a projection, but they did.  South America and Africa are almost identical between the Galls-Peters and an Azimuthal Equidistant map, and is simply don't see how that's possible.

As for Australia, one might have to go down to Australia and do the research, but I'm not sure it's even possible to simply drive across Australia due to the harsh conditions.  But perhaps Gleason's data about Australia was inaccurate.