Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Charity on October 19, 2022, 10:46:53 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0lQshr558 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0lQshr558)
-
LOL. So I started listening to this at 1.5 speed (to get through it quicker as I usually do), and he's playing DuBay at 1.5 speed, making it impossible for me to hear what DuBay is saying. I'll go back and listen later.
DuBay is not exactly the intellectual heavy-hitter when it comes to FEs, but has more of a popular appeal. There are some really bright guys on the GlobeBusters program that it might be good for him to debate. There's that Nathan Oakley guy, but I don't care for his style, plus he uses a lot of profanity. He uses the same style of ridicule and mockery that, oh, Non-Professor Dave uses. It's an unhelpful tactic. Oakley is very bright, but the style is very off-putting.
I really don't care for these video exchanges. It makes for one-sided debate really. DuBay isn't around to rebut the criticisms of his points. Dr. Sungenis is saying that by playing DuBay's video, the FE side is being heard and fully represented, but I would disagree. You're getting a high-level view of the narrative in the popular style of DuBay that glosses over a lot of the detail or fact behind his arguments. Another good one to debate would be Dr. John D, who is a scientific heavy-hitter. Unlike DuBay, however, he's not super popular because he has a very dry style and he does dive very deep into his scientific analysis, taking painstaking measurements, laying out the analysis. Dr. John D might take 2 hours to make an argument that DuBay would summarize and gloss over in 2 minutes. This is why DuBay might get 2 million views, while Dr. John D gets 15. Dr. John D has a PhD in spectrometry, so is highly qualiified to debate the issue. But he's "boring". Really the only place you see him represeted is through other more "popular" Flat Earthers who then summarize his videos.
-
00:00 - 21:47
First Argument: Common Sense
Conclusion: Draw
Dr. Sungenis is correct that one could make "common sense" arguments form both sides. Now, he does digress into some of the "common sense" arguments for globe, without really having time to prove them, but I was not convinced by anything he said (it's all been debunked) on this individual points, but that would be to get down into the weeds and is not really pertinent here. Globers believe they can debunk the "common sense" arguments of the FEs. So this argument can't be won or lost at this first level, but one would have to prove the sub-points that go beyond "common sense". Oh, Dr. Sungenis also digresses onto his assertion that all the Church Fathers (except Lactantius) believed the earth was a sphere. That too is incorrect. Well, it's correct, but incorrect. They did believe the world was a sphere, but not that the ground we walk on is shaped like a ball ... two different questions that Dr. Sungenis conflates here because he's imposing his bias onto any references to "sphere" and, strangely, sometimes even onto "circle" in the Church Fathers.
-
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.
-
Didn't Dr. Sugenis spend 700+ pages "refuting" FE already? Why is he tackling the subject again if his book was so comprehensive?
-
In the OP live video, Robert Sungenis begins with the shape of celestial objects by saying that it is common sense that since all celestial objects are spherical, the earth must also be spherical. Firstly, all stars are not spherical, as anyone with a decent camera can testify. Not even close.
Sun and moon do appear round, but even if they are round like balls, that cannot prove the shape of the earth by any stretch of reason. Sungenis' argument is like saying that since all the balls on a pool table are spherical, that the table must also be spherical. This is not common sense.
Sungenis says the form of a ball takes the least amount of energy to hold together, as if that is a proof earth is a globe. But to what degree? To the degree that everything has to be ball shaped? This ridiculous lack of common sense in order to support a theory is embarrassing. Furthermore, his idea of gravity commonly held, is widely disputed, even in scientific circles, and it remains unproven, so it cannot be used as a proof for any kind of "common sense".
Sungenis thinks it is common sense to believe that a drop of water is proof earth itself is also spherical. Because water forms a sphere when it's the size of a drop does not apply to water in larger amounts, ever. Water never, ever, ever, forms a ball in larger amounts and this is known in ordinary science and understood through common sense. Again, Sungenis makes us wonder about the validity of the prefix to his name.
Regarding the southern stars, you'd naturally see more and in some cases, different stars in the southern "hemisphere" than you would from the northern regions because of perspective on a land mass the size of earth, but Sungenis doesn't seem to know the realities of perspective nor does he understand the extent of visibility of objects on a plane. He never even attempts to address this problem but assumes you are as ignorant as he is.
Sungenis is either lying or so enamored of his own view that he can't see how transparent he is. If you're going to write a book on a subject, you'd better understand your sources and reproduce the truth when citing them. It is proven over and over in these discussions on Cathinfo that 100% of the Fathers who taught anything about the shape of the earth, not those who expressed a personal belief, but the ones who actually taught about the shape of earth, described and/or defended the flat earth and based their observations on scripture. Not even one Father (or saint) taught that earth is a ball, let alone did he base his argument on scripture. Many of the Fathers further expressed knowledge of a flat earth through types, comparing the shape of the earth with the shape of the ark, the ark of the covenant, the temple, even to a two story house, and earth's shape is also reflected in traditional church architecture. Never once, has any Father of the Church attempted to prove the land mass of earth is a globe. As far as I can tell, it makes more common sense to listen to the Church Fathers themselves than to Sungenis making wild claims about what he wishes they said.
Sungenis actually has the nerve to say that Lactanctius was wrong to defend the Christian belief that men stood upright simply because that's what the Psalms say. Why does Sungenis call into question the veracity of scripture as well a Father of the Church? Call me crazy but defending what scripture and a Father says is common sense and debunking scripture and a Church Father is moronic. Sungenis actually says that Lactanctius "took God a little to literally" and then he scoffs that men have their head above their feet. Well, I choose Scripture, Lactanctius and common sense because Sungenis obviously keeps his head somewhere below where it should be. Sungenis then stammers on about what is up and what is down and doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference. Then he mocks Eric Dubay for not explaining why up is up and down is down. :facepalm:
Sungenis accuses Dubay of giving only one side of the argument, but in a fit of mockery tells us that he'll forgive him. How can we forgive Sungenis when he does the same thing he accuses Dubay of, especially when a Catholic should know better?
The next proof Sungenis attempts to tackle is eclipses. His explanation is shameful. He actually says that an eclipse of the moon could only happen if earth is spherical. Where are his experiments to prove this claim? Has he read anything beyond his own writings? He should know that it is physically impossible for the earth to cast the shadow on the moon during an eclipse. I won't go into the particulars here and now, but this has been explained and proven, to the moon and back, here on Cathinfo and elsewhere. Not only is he not dealing with any proofs against his personal belief in celestial fairy tales, Sungenis proves again that he's doing what he accuses Dubay of doing.
I'm only 17 and 1/2 minutes in and got pretty wearied by Sungenis' first grade attempt to hijack an audience to whom he hopes to sell his book. Eric Dubay is a nothing more than a pagan, yet he has more common sense in his broken existence than the supposedly higher educated Robert Sungenis is able to begin to understand.
-
Didn't Dr. Sugenis spend 700+ pages "refuting" FE already? Why is he tackling the subject again if his book was so comprehensive?
Well ... he said it was by popular demand that he was addresssing the issue, and in the first 35 minutes or so, he'd been promoting his book.
-
I didn't go into detail about his pro-Globe "common sense" arguments. Most of them have been and are easily debunked. But from the perspective of "common sense" (an amorphous term), maybe he's right to a point. I don't like the "common sense" argument because it's highly subjective. In many cases, what he's referring to is in fact "popular misconception due to programming people's minds", but this is so subjective an assessment that it's not a winable argument by either side. Each point he raised is able to be refuted with logic and scientific evidence (such as what Tradman laid out), but that's more a scientific rather than a "common sense" perspective.
-
I don't really follow this stuff and the following my seem stupid, but why don't globeearthers do an experiment by flying a jet due east (or west) at a certain latitude and keep going - stopping for refueling - east (or west) at the same latitude and see if they end up where they started . . . or someplace less desirable?
-
I don't really follow this stuff and the following my seem stupid, but why don't globeearthers do an experiment by flying a jet due east (or west) at a certain latitude and keep going - stopping for refueling - east (or west) at the same latitude and see if they end up where they started . . . or someplace less desirable?
The one that FE supporters throw out there is a flight over the "continent" or circuмnavigating the coast of Antarctica. As that would definitively prove the rotundity of the earth. Yet, civilians are absolutely forbidden from even approaching the frozen "continent".
https://youtu.be/SmYRFtY_jfQ
-
The one that FE supporters throw out there is a flight over the "continent" or circuмnavigating the coast of Antarctica. As that would definitively prove the rotundity of the earth. Yet, civilians are absolutely forbidden from even approaching the frozen "continent".
https://youtu.be/SmYRFtY_jfQ
Well, you don't need to fly an airplane. Weather balloons are relatively cheap. Just put up a balloon to 30km loaded with cameras and any other useful instruments. Put it up from southern Argentina or Chile or Australia. You could watch jet stream patterns to try to get the balloon to drift as close to antartica as possible. It would definitely cost money to do experiments like that because you have to have some way to get the data back (either drop the data back to the surface for recovery or have some kind of transmitter on the balloon sending data back to a receiver). You could probably even get permission to fly a drone over antartica if you had the money for that. You will never be able to convince people that there is a massive conspiracy without some kind of solid experimental data. You could even start a crowdfunded project to send a satellite to low earth orbit to get photos of the bottom of the flat earth. That would certainly be sensational. But wouldn't any flat earther be afraid to risk time and treasure on such a project since if you have a positive result, the GE global conspiracy will destroy you. And if a negative result, the FE side will disown you and accuse you of being a part of the conspiracy. You really can't win.
-
But wouldn't any flat earther be afraid to risk time and treasure on such a project since if you have a positive result, the GE global conspiracy will destroy you. And if a negative result, the FE side will disown you and accuse you of being a part of the conspiracy. You really can't win.
That's a valid point. I could certainly see that happening given that some are so attached to the conspiracy that anyone who could come out against it is a "shill." But there's also many who do set out to make these kinds of experiments for the sake of truth, such as Dr. John D whom Lad mentions frequently.
-
Nitimini perseverare. Endeavor to persevere.
-
I don't really follow this stuff and the following my seem stupid, but why don't globeearthers do an experiment by flying a jet due east (or west) at a certain latitude and keep going - stopping for refueling - east (or west) at the same latitude and see if they end up where they started . . . or someplace less desirable?
You don't need your own airplane, just view a real time flight tracker.
Of flights moving predominately east or west, those above the equator will exhibit an upward arc flight path as the flat map can't properly depict the circle that is Earth. These flight paths are consistent with both Flat and Globe earth. Those flights in the southern hemisphere (so below the equator) exhibit a downward arc which is only consistent with a globe. A Flat earth model like the NASA logo would still need flight paths to arc up and the distances/flight durations would be impossibly longer.
I have a screen shot of a flight from JNB to SYN but someone will have to tell me how to post it.
-
You don't need your own airplane, just view a real time flight tracker.
Of flights moving predominately east or west, those above the equator will exhibit an upward arc flight path as the flat map can't properly depict the circle that is Earth. These flight paths are consistent with both Flat and Globe earth. Those flights in the southern hemisphere (so below the equator) exhibit a downward arc which is only consistent with a globe. A Flat earth model like the NASA logo would still need flight paths to arc up and the distances/flight durations would be impossibly longer.
I have a screen shot of a flight from JNB to SYN but someone will have to tell me how to post it.
At the bottom of the body of your message, click on the down-pointing arrow next to Attachments and other options. From there you can click Choose File and add the image as an attachment.
-
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64
-
Dubay's funny but we don't say or imply that Australia's upside down and Connecticut's right side up because the earth's a sphere. All the yachting experience around the Earth is right side up in whatever hemisphere and all the keels point down to the collective center.
-
Thx D.L.
Somehow its a different flight.
-
... of course, all aviation navigation's based on a fixed-Earth assumption and it works because the Earth's not moving.
The Sun orbits the Earth just like the Bible says and all the Freemasons and Jews at NASA and Blackrock should be burned at the stake. Galileo got off too lucky ...
-
... of course, all aviation navigation's based on a fixed-Earth assumption and it works because the Earth's not moving.
The Sun orbits the Earth just like the Bible says and all the Freemasons and Jєωs at NASA and Blackrock should be burned at the stake. Galileo got off too lucky ...
THIS^^^
-
Dubay's funny but we don't say or imply that Australia's upside down and Connecticut's right side up because the earth's a sphere. All the yachting experience around the Earth is right side up in whatever hemisphere and all the keels point down to the collective center.
What he's trying to say that our perception of it is differen from the assertion and that we should trust our perception.
-
In APPENDIX A. of Ptolemy: Syntaxis Mathematica (Almagest), there is a brief explanation that includes the true notion that the distinction between up and down, as well as lateral and vertical, in a true sphere is arbitrary. These distinctions happen later by circuмstance or label (name). As Don Quixote said, "I am I and my circuмstances. If not for them then not for me." What's not arbitrary is the fundamental relation between the surface and the center.
Dr. Sungenis makes a mistake giving credit to the theory of gravity. It can be proved with a golf ball or yo-yo that gravity's not any kind of lateral force. Since it's not a lateral force, it's not a vertical one either, since "pure" space is spherical, and it's not the reason heavy objects fall down around the surface of the Earth, and come to rest upon it, as the Earth itself is always at rest before them. Galileo's law of falling bodies is false and so are Newton's theories about the Moon, etc.
The gradual acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe, Dorothy Stimson
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35744/pg35744-images.html
-
In APPENDIX A. of Ptolemy: Syntaxis Mathematica (Almagest), there is a brief explanation that includes the true notion that the distinction between up and down, as well as lateral and vertical, in a true sphere is arbitrary.
Ptolemy appears to be adding a little spin to things. In the real world, up is just up. And down is just down. Of course, not on the globe, which supports arbitrary concepts of place, position, reality, or in other words, relativism. Globers will admit that they think the definitions of words like lateral, vertical, horizontal, curve, straight, level, east, west, up and down are not actually true. That kind of thinking naturally has an effect on one's relationship with truth and it can't be good.
-
You fly east to go from Tokyo to Moscow, Moscow to London, London to New York, New York to LA, and LA to Tokyo.
Just curious: how do Flat Earthers explain that?
-
You fly east to go from Tokyo to Moscow, Moscow to London, London to New York, New York to LA, and LA to Tokyo.
Just curious: how do Flat Earthers explain that?
You can fly around a circle as easily as you can go around the circuмference of a ball.
-
You fly east to go from Tokyo to Moscow, Moscow to London, London to New York, New York to LA, and LA to Tokyo.
Just curious: how do Flat Earthers explain that?
If you thought flight paths support a fruit-shaped Earth think again.
ˇˇˇ
-
I’ve repeated this on other FE threads, you need to have an accurate model that actually works. The inconsistencies and aberrations in the FE theory pale in comparison to any problems in the GE model.
-
I’ve repeated this on other FE threads, you need to have an accurate model that actually works. The inconsistencies and aberrations in the FE theory pale in comparison to any problems in the GE model.
That's simply untrue. I'd put money on it that you're not acquainted enough with the FE model to be qualified to make this claim and that you're just saying this because you're attached to the globe model.
And that is absolutely false that a perfect model is necessary to establish the basic principles, that there is no curvature of the earth. This curvature has never been measured or established, and we have thousands of experiments out there that falsify curvature. So there's an abundance of evidence that there is no curvature. This does not require there to be a perfect FE model. Scientists work with hypothetical models all the time. In fact, 90% of their junk is nothing more than "theory". They've been working with Big Bang for decades and keep having to make stuff up (like this hyperinflation phase and dark matter) to prevent it from being falsified.
Thousands of experiments that defy globe math cannot be explained by the deus ex machina of "refraction" that is rolled out to explain all of it. To refute FE, the globers would have to come up with some explanation for light curving around the globe of the planet. Perhaps they can claim that it's some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon that consistently bends light perfectly around the globe. But the "refraction" explanation is utter hogwash and has been falsfiied by 2-way laser experiments.
-
That's simply untrue. I'd put money on it that you're not acquainted enough with the FE model to be qualified to make this claim and that you're just saying this because you're attached to the globe model.
And that is absolutely false that a perfect model is necessary to establish the basic principles, that there is no curvature of the earth. This curvature has never been measured or established, and we have thousands of experiments out there that falsify curvature. So there's an abundance of evidence that there is no curvature. This does not require there to be a perfect FE model. Scientists work with hypothetical models all the time. In fact, 90% of their junk is nothing more than "theory". They've been working with Big Bang for decades and keep having to make stuff up (like this hyperinflation phase and dark matter) to prevent it from being falsified.
Thousands of experiments that defy globe math cannot be explained by the deus ex machina of "refraction" that is rolled out to explain all of it. To refute FE, the globers would have to come up with some explanation for light curving around the globe of the planet. Perhaps they can claim that it's some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon that consistently bends light perfectly around the globe. But the "refraction" explanation is utter hogwash and has been falsfiied by 2-way laser experiments.
Sorry Lad, I really don’t want to be argumentative, but you wrote: “This does not require there to be a perfect FE model. Scientists work with hypothetical models all the time.”
Please post any model that remotely makes sense. In all honesty every model that has been posted on Cathinfo has been chimerical. They don’t work and don’t make sense. The distances are without question absolutely impossible and that alone makes it a failure. Give me a realistic model and I will be more than willing to evaluate it. As I’ve said in the past, I believe in geocentrism and am perfectly willing to accept an alternative theory.
-
Sorry Lad, I really don’t want to be argumentative, but you wrote: “This does not require there to be a perfect FE model. Scientists work with hypothetical models all the time.”
Please post any model that remotely makes sense. In all honesty every model that has been posted on Cathinfo has been chimerical. They don’t work and don’t make sense. The distances are without question absolutely impossible and that alone makes it a failure. Give me a realistic model and I will be more than willing to evaluate it. As I’ve said in the past, I believe in geocentrism and am perfectly willing to accept an alternative theory.
.
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 (https://www.yellowmaps.com/maps/img/US/political/USA-352047.jpg). 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.
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/WxLb7sn.png)
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.
-
So Dr. Sungenis thinks NASA is legit, except an occasional "foible".
I just ran across this --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3RNnk8xHac
You'd need a book twice the size of his Flat Earth book to catalog all the obvious NASA deception where they've been caught-red-handed, like with this one above here.
-
.
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 (https://www.yellowmaps.com/maps/img/US/political/USA-352047.jpg). 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.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81XJGnGyaAL.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg/1200px-Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg)
Now, here's North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant --
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)
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 --
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg/1024px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81XJGnGyaAL.jpg)
:facepalm:
(https://i.imgur.com/eLbXNu4.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4q8KMR.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81XJGnGyaAL.jpg)
.
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+wide+is+the+united+states+east+to+west&client=firefox-b-1-lm&ei=LcVSY9CCEoiM0PEP7teb2AM&ved=0ahUKEwiQzbnJ2_H6AhUIBjQIHe7rBjsQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=how+wide+is+the+united+states+east+to+west&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCCEQwwQQChCgAToKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoNCAAQ5AIQ1gQQsAMYAToGCAAQBxAeOgUIABCGAzoICCEQwwQQoAFKBAhNGAFKBAhBGABKBAhGGAFQswtY0xhgnBloAXABeAGAAdwBiAHIDZIBBTYuOS4xmAEAoAEByAENwAEB2gEGCAEQARgJ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), and Australia is roughly 2,500 miles long (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+wide+is+australia+from+east+to+west+in+miles&client=firefox-b-1-lm&ei=NcVSY7OqGv-H0PEP-sCu6AU&oq=how+wide+is+australia+east+to+west&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQARgBMgUIABCABDIGCAAQBxAeMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgM6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BAghEAo6CAgAEKIEEIsDOgoIABAeEKIEEIsDOgUIABCiBDoHCAAQgAQQDToICAAQCBAeEA06BggAEB4QDUoECEEYAEoECEYYAFCyCliyHGD0LGgBcAF4AIABeYgBsAqSAQQxMC40mAEAoAEByAEIuAECwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). 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.
-
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.
-
So Dr. Sungenis thinks NASA is legit, except an occasional "foible".
I just ran across this --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3RNnk8xHac
You'd need a book twice the size of his Flat Earth book to catalog all the obvious NASA deception where they've been caught-red-handed, like with this one above here.
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. Sungenis knows full well that NASA is major bad news in major ways. He also believes that IF the Earth was actually flat NASA would be the first to try to get us to believe it was a globe.
Just as one example of how Sungenis looks at NASA: He believes they faked the moon landings and he has expressly stated this over the years in his work, both written and verbal.
At the end of the above video Sungenis openly invites people to send him any questions they may have concerning FE. I wonder if any of the people on this forum have in good faith ever done that. I imagine some have, but for most I doubt that is the case. Much easier to simply level their attacks on his work in the CathInfo FE ghetto where they know they will not get any direct response from the one who they attack.
-
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
-
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
MAX IGAN AND ROB SKIBA FLIGHT DIRECTION AND LEVEL TESTS
26min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W9iejy1vyp5g/
-
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.
-
MAX IGAN AND ROB SKIBA FLIGHT DIRECTION AND LEVEL TESTS
26min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W9iejy1vyp5g/
Thanks for the support of my position. 5 min in and I see two huge mistakes. First and foremost, on the Gleason FE map, a flight from Santiago to Sydney isn't even possible. Look at the distance. It's about 20,000 miles, well beyond the range of any jetliner. The flight path takes you over North America for crying out loud. Also, he mentions the compass headings would be sw for a FE model but leaving Santiago your compass will show straight north (because magnetic north would cheat the reading left from there) on a FE until you get past the NP and then straight south.
Thank you for your concern.
JoeZ
-
.
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+wide+is+the+united+states+east+to+west&client=firefox-b-1-lm&ei=LcVSY9CCEoiM0PEP7teb2AM&ved=0ahUKEwiQzbnJ2_H6AhUIBjQIHe7rBjsQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=how+wide+is+the+united+states+east+to+west&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCCEQwwQQChCgAToKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoNCAAQ5AIQ1gQQsAMYAToGCAAQBxAeOgUIABCGAzoICCEQwwQQoAFKBAhNGAFKBAhBGABKBAhGGAFQswtY0xhgnBloAXABeAGAAdwBiAHIDZIBBTYuOS4xmAEAoAEByAENwAEB2gEGCAEQARgJ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), and Australia is roughly 2,500 miles long (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+wide+is+australia+from+east+to+west+in+miles&client=firefox-b-1-lm&ei=NcVSY7OqGv-H0PEP-sCu6AU&oq=how+wide+is+australia+east+to+west&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQARgBMgUIABCABDIGCAAQBxAeMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgM6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BAghEAo6CAgAEKIEEIsDOgoIABAeEKIEEIsDOgUIABCiBDoHCAAQgAQQDToICAAQCBAeEA06BggAEB4QDUoECEEYAEoECEYYAFCyCliyHGD0LGgBcAF4AIABeYgBsAqSAQQxMC40mAEAoAEByAEIuAECwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). 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.
-
Thanks for the support of my position. 5 min in and I see two huge mistakes. First and foremost, on the Gleason FE map, a flight from Santiago to Sydney isn't even possible. Look at the distance. It's about 20,000 miles, well beyond the range of any jetliner. The flight path takes you over North America for crying out loud. Also, he mentions the compass headings would be sw for a FE model but leaving Santiago your compass will show straight north (because magnetic north would cheat the reading left from there) on a FE until you get past the NP and then straight south.
Thank you for your concern.
JoeZ
That's interesting.
Well, in any case, there are two experiments showing that the flight path trackers are not accurate.
And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.
Another issue is that a compass can only work on a flat earth:
5min 07sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VDQzesvb3ys2/
-
That's interesting.
Well, in any case, there are two experiments showing that the flight path trackers are not accurate.
And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.
Another issue is that a compass can only work on a flat earth:
5min 07sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VDQzesvb3ys2/
:facepalm:
When the facts don’t support the theory, change the facts….
-
:facepalm:
When the facts don’t support the theory, change the facts….
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. ??
There are two scientific experiments that show a different reality from the flight trackers.
What does it mean?
What are the actual dimensions of the land masses?
What flight path were they actually taking?
I don't know. Do you?
Do you know for a fact that flight trackers are completely trustworthy?
If they were on a different flight path, what would that be?
Can you track a flight path on a globe with a compass?
Do compasses even work on a globe earth?
Things to ponder...questions to explore.
-
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. ??
There are two scientific experiments that show a different reality from the flight trackers.
What does it mean?
What are the actual dimensions of the land masses?
What flight path were they actually taking?
I don't know. Do you?
Do you know for a fact that flight trackers are completely trustworthy?
If they were on a different flight path, what would that be?
Can you track a flight path on a globe with a compass?
Do compasses even work on a globe earth?
Things to ponder...questions to explore.
You: “And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.”
Quote from Lad:
“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.”
“FEs generally adhere to the Gleason map. Gleason himself stated that it's accurate.”
-
You: “And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.”
Quote from Lad:
“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.”
“FEs generally adhere to the Gleason map. Gleason himself stated that it's accurate.”
I see. Well, Lad will have to respond to you on that. I was referring to what the gentleman in the video stated. Like him I don't have all the answers on map accuracy.
Do you have answers to my questions I posted?
My point was to show that there is evidence that the flight trackers are not accurate and the strange anomaly when it comes to using a compass on a globe.
Here is a flat earth flight tracker and there are some interesting comments as well:
4:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISc0NCv2Co&t=52s
And here is some info on how drastically Jet Streams in the southern hemisphere can effect flight times and refueling needs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt06AmOnH04&t=1472s
-
We can argue all we want about maps. There's some stuff that doesn't make sense for globe and some that doesn't make sense for flat. Of course, FE don't have the resources and scientific apparatus to do the work necessary to develop our own model with complete accuracy. Those resources are tightly controlled by the world Jєωocracy, and, of course, THE kicker that could either validate or falsify either paradigm has been strictly off limits since the 1950s when practically the entire world (even in the midst of the Cold War) signed on to the Antarctic Treaty. Admiral Byrd's surveying suggested an incredible amount of natural resources down there. Do we think the Soviets would have given a hoot about some Treaty? So, the modern explanation is that it's to preserve the natural habitat. Complete bovine excrement. This was the 1950s, people, long before anyone gave a hoot about a few penguins. There's something down there that they're all conspiring to hide. I saw two different amateur videos, and it didn't even appear that the people were flat earthers. One of them was of some guys in a boat heading down toward Antarctica. I think they were just trying to see if they could get near there. They were literally intercepted by a full-size battleship. So we have battleships patrolling Antarctica to keep an occasional clown from going down there in a small boat with a few buddies to take some selfies of them drinking beer near the Antarctic ice wall, or riding a snowmobile across the ice and snow? We have no better use for our resources? In the other video, a couple guys were flying a plane, also with the intent of getting down over Antarctica. They were intercepted by a fighter jet. They were ordered to turn around and were escorted to a military base. There, the guy making the video interviewed the commander and asked whether, if they had refused to turn around, they would have been shot down. Base commander replied in the affirmative. So it's not about protecting the civilians from a dangerous climate either. Let's shoot them down so they don't get injured, eh? So what is going on down there? I don't believe there are alien bases or nαzι bases under the ice ... like some of the disinfo cօռspιʀαcιҽs claim.
Now, Antarctica could disprove FE by showing video of the 24-hour sun, which should in theory be impossible on the prevailing FE model. Well, there have been two videos released claiming to docuмent the 24-hour sun ... and, shockingly, BOTH of them were proven obvious fakes. In one, you could see identical clouds, to the inch, at the beginning of the video and then at the end, proving that the same footage was being shown twice. On the other, supposedly from a camera at some station, you can see the shadows on these short flag poles, and they start to move around in a circle and then ... boom ... suddenly the video skips to where the shadow is in another quadrant of the circle, demonstrating that video had been cut out of it. Why this fakery? It would be very simple to just record a normal video for 24 hours, eh? But none exist. One FE made an entire lengthy video docuмenting tons of obvious and provable fraud from the Globers. Why all the fraud? For something that's so obvous and easy to prove?
It would also be easy to debunk FE for the cost of about 1 hour of NASA budget. On globe model, the circuмference of Antarctica is about 10 thousand miles. There are planes out there that can do that distance without refueling ... easily, probably some that NASA itself owns. If not, they could certainly rent some from the military. In fact, the long distance record for a commercial flight is about 11,000 miles (there's an Airbus model that can easily do 12,000 miles) ... and you know they didn't land on fumes but probably had at least 1/4 tank to spare, as anything else would be a safety concern (in case more fuel was consumed than expected for some reason). Northrup Grumman's Global Hawk can do about 15,000 miles +, so plenty to go around and return to South America without refueling. You take a plane, and then you invite a few of the leading FE groups to put some observers on the plane, and then you can post observers on boats at various point around Antarctica. So observations and readings can be taken from on the plane and from at sea ... with objective unbiased observers on board both the plan and the sea vessels. Depending on whether you're flying clockwise or counter-clockwise around Antarctica, you could plan the trip so that the snow/ice of the continent will always remain visible on the same side of the plane. So with a simple flight like that, you could easil debunk FE and put it to bed.
Now, this picking away at the prevailing FE model is also disingenuous and a distraction. It's disingenuous because FEs don't have the resources to come up with a thorough and scientifically accurate model. Occasionally on various discussion forums, the GEs keep challenging FEs to go down there, ignorant of the fact that it's not permitted. Someone made a video of the process required to be approved for a visit, and it's probably thousands of pages of paperwork, huge fees, etc. ... to keep King Penguin safe or to prevent the exhaust fumes from a single snow mobile form killing off half the penguin population. Again, as if in the 1950s people gave a hoot about any of that garbage. And it's not like people are talking about building a factory down there with 24/7 pollution. Both the US and the Soviets would have been scrambling to exploit the natural resources down there and would have signed on to no such Treaty. So this picking away at the speculative FE model is disingenuous. It's also a distraction from the very solid evidence FEs have that cause serious problems for the Globe model and falsify it.
If you could offer me a credible explanation (I'm all ears) for --
1) why we can see too far. We have hundreds of easily repeatible and consistent videos, photographs (often by non-FEs who don't understand the implications of their photos from nearly 300 miles away), and laser experiments ... all consistently demonstrating that there is no curvature. To this the Globers throw excrement at the wall by pulling out a word "refraction". All known examples of refraction are inconsistent, cause image distortion, happen randomly and fluctuate (as the conditions don't remain stable and are highly volatile), and do not and cannot operate at distance of 300 miles, where many miles should be hidden behing the curvature / bulge. Pictures are too clear and too consistent for refraction to be remotely plausible ... except for being accepted via confirmation bias by the Globers, just like people accept the preposterous "evidence" for evolution only due to a combination of brainwashing and confirmation bias. Most fatal for "refraction" are the following: 1) two-way laser experiments (if you have increasing density gradient in one direction, you'd have a decreasing density gradient in the other ... both lasers pointing in opposite directions CANNOT BOTH refract downwards, 2) video/photo from miles away that show a perfect line of perspective between wind turbines that are about a mile or two apart and the closest 10 miles away. You'd have to have an identical refraction factor every single foot of the way for 10 miles for that to happen, 3) many videos taken in extremely cold / frigid conditions, sometimes on top of ice ... where refraction is almost impossible 4) many see-too-far videos where the horizon line is visible BEYOND the allegedly-refracted object (so refraction would erase the water bulge in front and then repaint it behind the refracted object. I'm honestly open to it. Come up with some PLAUSIBLE theory for this and I'm all ears. Say that, oh, some pressure of ether is forcing the light waves around the globe at a consistent rate or, some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon. But you can take your "refraction" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. No glober has ever conducted experiments where this refraction was proven to be happening, where they took meticulous temperature and humidity readings, and made the mathematical calculations. FEs have. With their laser experiments and with all of Dr. John D.'s experiments, where he did all the math and took all the readings. Globers merely shoot from the hip and sling the word "refraction" against the wall hoping it'll stick and that it'll be accepted by those who share their confirmation bias.
2) why the eath's atmosphere can be pressurized adjacent to a vacuum (without a container) and why it doesn't blow off into the vacuum of space. Running the numbers, the forces involved simply cannot be explained by gravity. It's ludicrous and violates numerous well-established laws of physics. Again, come up with a plausible explanation other than "gravity" and I'm all ears. Put a small vacuum on TOP of a container and open the top lid. Gravity will not keep the air in the container, not even close. In fact, in experiments conducted, they've had water at the bottom of the container, and the water sublimates into vapor and evaporates (boils away). And the vacuum of space is exponentially (with many zeros after it, as illustrated by Dr. John D in one of his videos) and by orders of magnitude greater than anything we have ever been able to produce on earth. So, again, come up with some explanation, ether pressure or electromagnetism or something ... but you can take your gravity and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. It's ridiculous and is only accepted by the brainwashed due to their confirmation bias.
Come up also with a plausible explanation for why Antarctica is locked down like a fortress by cooperation from all the nations of the world and their militaries.
So the proof and the evidece can fill VOLUMES, and it all falsifies the notion that we live on top of a globe ... unless of course it's a globe that's, oh, 50x bigger than we're told, as that would alter the curvature numbers and allow us to see for much longer distances. Yet that still does't explain why our atmosphere doesn't blow off into space.
I skip over the absolutely compelling evidence that the earth is NOT in motion, but remains still and at rest, while the stars and "planets" move in relation to it, since that pertains strictly to geocentrism and not necessarily FE. But the evidence for that is equally compelling.
-
You: “And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.”
Quote from Lad:
“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.”
“FEs generally adhere to the Gleason map. Gleason himself stated that it's accurate.”
Oh, come on, now. I didn't say it was infallibly true and 100% true in every detail. Please see my language above. Gleason REFLECTS reality, is GENERALLY adhered to, and GLEASON said it was accurate. Nobody has 100% confidence in any of these models. If I said I had 75% confidence in Gleason or a Gleason-like layout, I would say that I have a 10% confidence in the Globe. And the map-makers themselves are constantly debating which projection is the BEST and claim that there is NO PERFECT PROJECTION.
Projections can vary wildly and, as stated, one might be used over another simply based on the purpose for the map --
https://geoawesomeness.com/best-map-projection/
And there are some aspects of FE theory that are disputed and I'm not completely sure of. Heck, mainstream science are always debating one another and coming up with rival theories, even about stuff that was thought to be "established". So, for instance, the general FE speculation is that the sun moves over the plane of the earth parallel to it at all times, but sources such as the "Book of Enoch" suggest that it does go higher and lower above the plane and then enters and exits various portals. And, before you blow off Enoch, Sacred Scripture quotes from the book, and some of the Church Fathers believed it to be inspired Sacred Scripture itself. Its attribution to Enoch was generally accepted even though it was not accepted by all as inspired, and in the end the Church decided that it was not. Not everything ever written by some figure mentioned in the Old Testament is automatically inspired, but that doesn't mean it may not be reliable and true from a human perspective. I'm sure that St. Paul wrote other letters than those that made it into Sacred Scripture, many of which were not inspired. "I'll be arriving by Monday of next week. If you're cooking, I really enjoy fish and dates. I'll probably need to wash my clothes when I get there after the long journey."
But the accuracy of and disagreements over all the details of the model do not speak to the ACTUAL problem, which is detailed in my previous post.
What's at issue here with Gleason or Azimuthal Projection is the problem with why Africa and South America retain their proportions on the Gleason map to make them nearly identical to Galls-Peters, which at first glance would be mathematically impossible. Simply have a look at the South Pole Azimuthal projection to see how badly distorted things get as you get closer to the edges. I've seen other people analyze Gleason and do the math, but again, it's not something I ever see Globers do. I grant that Australia seems off, but who knows? Perhaps Gleason didn't have great data, or else it was distorted deliberately for some reason.
And, see, here's the thing. Before I did the research and realized that we've been lied to, I didn't really care about FE. I certainly would not have wasted more than 30 seconds of my time reading FE posts. Wasn't worth my time, and I'd blow it off. And, really, who cares? There were much more important issues to address, such as heresy and Modernism, and not the imaginations of a few kooks.
If you think it's nuts, you wouldn't dignify it with a response, except perhaps if you believed charity requires it. Nobody's soul is on the line if the mistakenly think the earth is flat. I'm not going to be judged by God when I die for having been wrong about the shape of the earth.
Globers spend inordinate amounts of time attacking FE. If some bozo came on here and kept posting about how there were purple aliens from the Sirius star system living in underground bases on Mars, I would just do the old circle by the ear while whistling and move along.
This zeal in attacking FE demonstrates 1) that people somehow are threatened by this (speaking to a psychological trauma that would result if they would be wrested from the idea, which in turn speaks to brainwashing or programming) and 2) that there's some serious and credible evidence in its favor. Nobody feels threatened by the Mars subterranean base theory, nor is there any evidence for it that requires refutation.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISc0NCv2Co
This looks fascinating. Unfortunately the website is down. I wonder why, or, rather ... who.
So, I happened to catch a Twitter handle on one screen @airline_bound and did a Google Search. As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" It's nowhere to be found, but th FIRST search result that comes up is to Flat Earth Society Twitter, and you click on it and there's zero reference to airline on the entire page. Why would an algorithm based just on words send "airline_bound" to Flat Earth Society? This was a deliberately-manipulated search result. FE Society is nearly universally rejected by FEs as a government operation (after its original founder died).
-
He [Sungenis] thinks that nearly everything from NASA is legit and real ... except for the non-geocetrist stuff.
NASA employs over 17,000 individuals. No doubt a fair number of them believe in geocentrism, but can not openly say so, much less promote it, for fear of losing their job.
Perhaps, some of them believe in FE, but there is no way they can speak openly about it, much less promote it, without jeopardizing their job status.
You said that Sungenis "thinks that nearly everything from NASA is legit and real ... except for the non-geocetrist stuff." Fine, that is your opinion. To have that opinion is one thing, but to substantiate it with facts which you have not done is quite another.
-
You said that Sungenis "thinks that nearly everything from NASA is legit and real ... except for the non-geocetrist stuff." Fine, that is your opinion. To have that opinion is one thing, but to substantiate it with facts which you have not done is quite another.
You're simply in denial. I read the part of his book where he defends NASA. He admits of one "foible" only and then asserts that the NASA evidence against FE is credible ... just because. In the video in OP, he doesn't even do that, but simply defends NASA categorically against FE charges. I've never seen Sungenis admit that NASA is filled with lies and fraud. In everythig I've read, he has shilled for NASA. Please find some citations to the contrary where it isn't directly related to his geocetrism.
In fact, just calling it a "foible" shows that he's shiling for NASA, minimizing it as much as possible. No, this was clear-cut fraud and fakery and no "foible".
NASA and the scientific establishment are his enemy ... until of course it's convenient to have them as an ally (to attack FE). It's like when Pilate and Herod became friends that day. Sadly, he used some of the exact same arguments (such as from parallax) against FEs that NASA and the scientific establishment have used against his geocentrism. NASA and the scientific establishment have ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed him, and he shows NASA deference and respect while joining in their ridicule of FEs. It's disgraceful.
This reminds me of an episode on the playgrounds when I was a child. There was a bully there who tormented this one kid. But at one point this bully went after some OTHER kid, and the first kid (former victim) joined in on the bully's attack on the second kid. So he joined his tormentor in attacking another victim. One could speculate about the psychology. Was he trying to make favor with the bully so that the bully would stop attacking him ... and then vent his anger on this new victim? That's precisely what is going on here with Sungenis. Join forces with the evil bully to attack someone else to curry favor with "respectbility" and the "scientific establishment". In fact, in one interview, Sungenis states almost exactly that, that he set out to debunk FE so that it would not somehow get associated with him and give NASA ammunition against his positions.
It's a dead giveaway out of the gate when Sungenis admits that he set out to debunk FE. He was commissioned in part by Kolbe institute (translation = "paid") to write this book against FE. He did not go into it with an open mind, "I'll have a look at their claims to see what that's all about."
-
That's precisely what is going on here with Sungenis. Join forces with the evil bully to attack someone else to curry favor with "respectbility" and the "scientific establishment". In fact, in one interview, Sungenis states almost exactly that, that he set out to debunk FE so that it would not somehow get associated with him and give NASA ammunition against his positions.
It's a dead giveaway out of the gate when Sungenis admits that he set out to debunk FE. He was commissioned in part by Kolbe institute (translation = "paid") to write this book against FE. He did not go into it with an open mind, "I'll have a look at their claims to see what that's all about."
You say I am in denial and then you go on to say the above. You are really out of your league when you continually go around trying to play psychoanalyst on Robert Sungenis. You wildly extrapolate as you see fit and and present your half cocked speculations/conjectures based largely on your own strong FE bias as statements of fact which you know most of your choir who you sing to on this forum will happily go along with you -- and yet -- and yet you adamantly refuse to even communicate directly with the one you hold up as your prime whipping boy on this ghetto sub-forum. Ha, that's rich.
-
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. Sungenis knows full well that NASA is major bad news in major ways. He also believes that IF the Earth was actually flat NASA would be the first to try to get us to believe it was a globe.
Just as one example of how Sungenis looks at NASA: He believes they faked the moon landings and he has expressly stated this over the years in his work, both written and verbal.
Wouldn't that have been a very important and pertinent thing to note in his 700 page book intended to disprove the Flat Earth? Hm...
When was the last time Sungenis espoused lunar landing denial publicly?
If he does believe it he certainly managed to never tell me so in any of his docuмentaries, books, videos and articles I've read from him.
Is that just a coincidence or does he crave that all-important scientific respectability?
So his book portrays FEs as some conspiratorial loons but he neglects to mention he doesn't believe in the moon landing? GIVE ME A BREAK!
-
Oh, come on, now. I didn't say it was infallibly true and 100% true in every detail. Please see my language above. Gleason REFLECTS reality, is GENERALLY adhered to, and GLEASON said it was accurate. Nobody has 100% confidence in any of these models. If I said I had 75% confidence in Gleason or a Gleason-like layout, I would say that I have a 10% confidence in the Globe. And the map-makers themselves are constantly debating which projection is the BEST and claim that there is NO PERFECT PROJECTION.
Projections can vary wildly and, as stated, one might be used over another simply based on the purpose for the map --
https://geoawesomeness.com/best-map-projection/
And there are some aspects of FE theory that are disputed and I'm not completely sure of. Heck, mainstream science are always debating one another and coming up with rival theories, even about stuff that was thought to be "established". So, for instance, the general FE speculation is that the sun moves over the plane of the earth parallel to it at all times, but sources such as the "Book of Enoch" suggest that it does go higher and lower above the plane and then enters and exits various portals. And, before you blow off Enoch, Sacred Scripture quotes from the book, and some of the Church Fathers believed it to be inspired Sacred Scripture itself. Its attribution to Enoch was generally accepted even though it was not accepted by all as inspired, and in the end the Church decided that it was not. Not everything ever written by some figure mentioned in the Old Testament is automatically inspired, but that doesn't mean it may not be reliable and true from a human perspective. I'm sure that St. Paul wrote other letters than those that made it into Sacred Scripture, many of which were not inspired. "I'll be arriving by Monday of next week. If you're cooking, I really enjoy fish and dates. I'll probably need to wash my clothes when I get there after the long journey."
But the accuracy of and disagreements over all the details of the model do not speak to the ACTUAL problem, which is detailed in my previous post.
What's at issue here with Gleason or Azimuthal Projection is the problem with why Africa and South America retain their proportions on the Gleason map to make them nearly identical to Galls-Peters, which at first glance would be mathematically impossible. Simply have a look at the South Pole Azimuthal projection to see how badly distorted things get as you get closer to the edges. I've seen other people analyze Gleason and do the math, but again, it's not something I ever see Globers do. I grant that Australia seems off, but who knows? Perhaps Gleason didn't have great data, or else it was distorted deliberately for some reason.
And, see, here's the thing. Before I did the research and realized that we've been lied to, I didn't really care about FE. I certainly would not have wasted more than 30 seconds of my time reading FE posts. Wasn't worth my time, and I'd blow it off. And, really, who cares? There were much more important issues to address, such as heresy and Modernism, and not the imaginations of a few kooks.
If you think it's nuts, you wouldn't dignify it with a response, except perhaps if you believed charity requires it. Nobody's soul is on the line if the mistakenly think the earth is flat. I'm not going to be judged by God when I die for having been wrong about the shape of the earth.
Globers spend inordinate amounts of time attacking FE. If some bozo came on here and kept posting about how there were purple aliens from the Sirius star system living in underground bases on Mars, I would just do the old circle by the ear while whistling and move along.
This zeal in attacking FE demonstrates 1) that people somehow are threatened by this (speaking to a psychological trauma that would result if they would be wrested from the idea, which in turn speaks to brainwashing or programming) and 2) that there's some serious and credible evidence in its favor. Nobody feels threatened by the Mars subterranean base theory, nor is there any evidence for it that requires refutation.
Well Lad, this is the map you posted as your model and vouched that it was more or less accurate. Frankly, it’s a complete and total mess. The size of the continents are all wrong, England it too north, the ocean sizes are absolutely ridiculous, and the distances between continents, which ARE accurately measurable, are preposterous. I won’t even get into how the sun and moon would work, but suffice to say, it’s *impossible* to reconcile on that model.
I will say again, you need to have a model that is remotely workable to get me, at least, to give this FE theory a second chance of being credible.
Also, as I said many times in past posts, *I* believe that this EF theory was promoted so as to belittle and sully geocentrism.
-
Well Lad, this is the map you posted as your model and vouched that it was more or less accurate. Frankly, it’s a complete and total mess. The size of the continents are all wrong, England it too north, the ocean sizes are absolutely ridiculous, and the distances between continents, which ARE accurately measurable, are preposterous. I won’t even get into how the sun and moon would work, but suffice to say, it’s *impossible* to reconcile on that model.
I will say again, you need to have a model that is remotely workable to get me, at least, to give this FE theory a second chance of being credible.
Also, as I said many times in past posts, *I* believe that this EF theory was promoted so as to belittle and sully geocentrism.
Are there any problems with the ball earth model?
Why would airlines waste money on fuel making these "great circle" routes which take them over the northern arctic?
Can you explain how a compass would work on the southern side of a ball?
Can you demonstrate how large bodies of water can stick to the outside of a ball?
Can you demonstrate a large body of water without some sort of container to hold it?
Can you demonstrate a body (not just a drop) of water forming a curve?
Can you explain why a plane flying upside down in the Northern Hemisphere would cause distress to the humans inside but it somehow doesn't cause distress to the humans in the Southern Hemisphere?
There are many, many ways the sun and moon are irreconcilable with the ball earth model such as the moon providing its own light.
Where is the firmament on the ball model? (The firmament is in the Bible 23 times.)
Is Heaven beyond the firmament or is "outer space"?
The ball model appears to be a bit of a mess.
There are many more basic questions like these that need to be answered.
Until there is a "remotely workable model" many people will not give this ball earth theory a second chance of being credible.
Not everyone asks the questions though.
-
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. ??
There are two scientific experiments that show a different reality from the flight trackers.
What does it mean?
What are the actual dimensions of the land masses?
What flight path were they actually taking?
I don't know. Do you?
Do you know for a fact that flight trackers are completely trustworthy?
If they were on a different flight path, what would that be?
Can you track a flight path on a globe with a compass?
Do compasses even work on a globe earth?
Things to ponder...questions to explore.
Why just downvote without answering the questions?
-
Are there any problems with the ball earth model?
Why would airlines waste money on fuel making these "great circle" routes which take them over the northern arctic?
Can you explain how a compass would work on the southern side of a ball?
Can you demonstrate how large bodies of water can stick to the outside of a ball?
Can you demonstrate a large body of water without some sort of container to hold it?
Can you demonstrate a body (not just a drop) of water forming a curve?
Can you explain why a plane flying upside down in the Northern Hemisphere would cause distress to the humans inside but it somehow doesn't cause distress to the humans in the Southern Hemisphere?
There are many, many ways the sun and moon are irreconcilable with the ball earth model such as the moon providing its own light.
Where is the firmament on the ball model? (The firmament is in the Bible 23 times.)
Is Heaven beyond the firmament or is "outer space"?
The ball model appears to be a bit of a mess.
There are many more basic questions like these that need to be answered.
Until there is a "remotely workable model" many people will not give this ball earth theory a second chance of being credible.
Not everyone asks the questions though.
Just to let you know, I didn’t downvote you.
As for issues with the GE model, sure there are unanswered problems and I certainly question science, or what purports to be science today, but GE is NOT a new thing, it is ancient and was and is believed by nearly all ancient and modern scholars. The GE model may not be perfect, but it works pretty darn well and it answers MOST all of the questions with the movements of the heavens.
If you, Ladislaus, or anyone else want to discard the GE model and believe the Earth is flat, be my guest, it contradicts no teaching of the Church that I know of, but if you feel you must abandon it , for sanity’s sake you better have a reasonable working model to replace it. ANY FE model that I have seen is preposterous and has such enormous holes that multiple trucks can be driven through it.
-
Are there any problems with the ball earth model?
Why would airlines waste money on fuel making these "great circle" routes which take them over the northern arctic?
Can you explain how a compass would work on the southern side of a ball?
Can you demonstrate how large bodies of water can stick to the outside of a ball?
Can you demonstrate a large body of water without some sort of container to hold it?
Can you demonstrate a body (not just a drop) of water forming a curve?
Can you explain why a plane flying upside down in the Northern Hemisphere would cause distress to the humans inside but it somehow doesn't cause distress to the humans in the Southern Hemisphere?
There are many, many ways the sun and moon are irreconcilable with the ball earth model such as the moon providing its own light.
Where is the firmament on the ball model? (The firmament is in the Bible 23 times.)
Is Heaven beyond the firmament or is "outer space"?
The ball model appears to be a bit of a mess.
There are many more basic questions like these that need to be answered.
Until there is a "remotely workable model" many people will not give this ball earth theory a second chance of being credible.
Not everyone asks the questions though.
Good questions but good luck. People who believe earth is a globe don't really answer questions, they just pose them.
-
Good questions but good luck. People who believe earth is a globe don't really answer questions, they just pose them.
I think some of her questions are legitimate, but if you want to discard a time honored model that answers 100 times more questions than the problems it has, you have to have a replacement. You don’t.
-
Wouldn't that have been a very important and pertinent thing to note in his 700 page book intended to disprove the Flat Earth? Hm...
When was the last time Sungenis espoused lunar landing denial publicly?
If he does believe it he certainly managed to never tell me so in any of his docuмentaries, books, videos and articles I've read from him.
Is that just a coincidence or does he crave that all-important scientific respectability?
So his book portrays FEs as some conspiratorial loons but he neglects to mention he doesn't believe in the moon landing? GIVE ME A BREAK!
I agree. If I were honestly trying to ascertain the truth, based on the evidence, I would have to discard anything sourced from NASA ... since, as I mentioned, the amount of obvious provable fraud could fill volumes bigger than Sungenis' own books.
In his book against FE, he made the fallacious argument that just because SOME of NASA's evidence is fake (he had to admit that once instance cited in his book), that doesn't mean it's all fake.
While that's obviously true in a strictly logical sense, there's a legal principle (where it comes to "evidence") cited as falsus in uno, falsis in omnibus (false in one thing, false in all things). In other words, if a witness is caught in a lie, that discredits his ENTIRE testimony. If the witness has no credibility, then you can't use anything he says as evidence.
If NASA has been caught in ONE lie, how could you every know when they were lying and when they were telling the truth? I told that to a couple of my kids who have lied to me over the years. I asked them later when they insisted they were telling the truth, "But how can I know that, since you lie to me sometimes?"
In this day of technology, of CGI and virtual reality, ANYthing can be faked. That reminds me of that ridiculous laughable video put out by the Air Force in 1947 (so the government fraud predates NASA) purportedly showing video of space taken from some super-high altitude plane (or maybe it was a balloon). That was so utterly ridiculous that if anyone believes that it was real, they should be committed to a psychiatric institution.
3:27-5:20
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/portfolio/best-space-fails-in-one-video/
Then there's this entire video docuмenting the fraud employed by Globers (about 22:07 long):
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/portfolio/globalists-and-their-lies-prove-the-earth-is-flat/
-
Well Lad, this is the map you posted as your model and vouched that it was more or less accurate. Frankly, it’s a complete and total mess. The size of the continents are all wrong, England it too north, the ocean sizes are absolutely ridiculous, and the distances between continents, which ARE accurately measurable, are preposterous. I won’t even get into how the sun and moon would work, but suffice to say, it’s *impossible* to reconcile on that model.
I will say again, you need to have a model that is remotely workable to get me, at least, to give this FE theory a second chance of being credible.
Also, as I said many times in past posts, *I* believe that this EF theory was promoted so as to belittle and sully geocentrism.
You put up your own false standards of evidence but ABSOLUTELY ignore the problems cited in those paragraphs I posted above, and in doing so you completely ignore and reject the scientific method. Scientific Method starts with obsevations and evidence. There's volumes of evidence that falsifies the globe. So with the globe model falsified by the evidence, the next step is to create other hypotheses to explain this evidence. FEs hypothesize something similar to a Gleason layout. We do not have proof for all of it, and other FEs have come up with other hypotheses.
But you completely ignore the evidence that falsifies the NASA ball earth. You cling to Globe even after it's been falsified, without even bothering to try refuting the evidence ... because you "believe", aka WANT to "believe" something. True "belief" is based on evidence. You could claim, "Until the Flat Earthers fly to Mars and prove that it's not a physical planet, it's a physical planet ... despite any other evidence to the contrary."
I said the Gleason REFLECTS reality and brought evidence to bear in its favor. Your assertion that Gleason is a mess (asserting that England is too far North, etc.), that is simply your opinion ... again put out there gratuitously and without any proof. If you'd bother to have a look at the various projections, you'll see that someone used to one projection, when suddently presented with a different one, would think it "wrong". On the Mercator that everyone grew up with and were brainwashed into thinking was real, well Galls-Peters made the same claim about it, that Africa and South America and Australia were the WRONG SIZE.
But you choose to believe what you believe because you want to. You're clearly not studying the evidence with an open mind.
I repeat, come up with plausible explanations for the two major points I cited above that completely falsify ball earth and I'm all ears, but I could hardly care less about what you "believe" and gratuitously assert witout a shred of evidence.
-
I think some of her questions are legitimate, but if you want to discard a time honored model that answers 100 times more questions than the problems it has, you have to have a replacement. You don’t.
Actually, we do. We have scripture's description and collective exegeses of the Fathers on types regarding the shape of earth and haven't even begun to scratch that surface. Without NASA's extended capability to prove exact parameters, and otherwise blocked from definitive scientific proof, that's all we have, besides an entire mountain of other evidence. In a way it becomes a matter of faith. Standing before God, I'd hate to tell Him it wasn't enough while giving the lying NASA a pass.
-
To further elaborate on the scientific method. Given the evidence I presented earlier, the next step would be, "OK, I hypothesize that the earth is a globe but that it's 10x bigger than modern science claims." Then the next step is to find evidence that either conforms to the hypothesis or falsifies it. If it's falsified (as NASA ball has been), then you try to come up with a better hypothesis to explain the new evidence. But you don't care, since you already "believe" the opposite.
You can go all the way back. Let's start with Eratosthenes. He does his experiment with the sticks, and hypothesizes that the sun is many millions of miles away and that therefore the experiment indicates that the earth is a globe. But where was his proof that the sun is millions of miles away? He had none. If the sun were closer and smaller, the results of the experiment could just as easily be explained that way. Yet Globers cite Eratosthenes as proof ... but it's because they have already assumed that the sun is millions of miles away. BTW, that's another lie, that everyone has believed the earth is a ball since the ancient Greeks. We have the testimony of the Church Fathers themselves that there were dozens of competing theories even in their own day.
So let's say we're down to either 1) sun is close (and smaller) and earth is flat OR 2) sun is far (and larger) and earth is a globe, then we go look for evidence that proves or disproves either one or both of these. And then you go back to the drawing board and come up with another hypotheses.
As I said, I am open and I am all ears. If someone would hypothesize that the earth is a globe and much larger than we're told, I would look at the evidence for and against. If someone hypothesized that (instead of debunked "refraction"), the pressure of ether causes light to bend around the globe and the atmosphere to stay contained around the globe ... perhaps something that a Dr. Sungenis might hold with his Planckian fabric theory, I'd look at the evidence. Or perhaps either keeps the atmosphere contained (under pressure), while electromagnetism causes light to bend around the globe. But "refraction" is total garbage.
-
BTW, with as much as it's claimed that this has been "established" science forever, the hypotheses regarding the size of the sun and its distance from the earth have change radically over the years, from 1 million miles away (and N size) to 2 milion (and N x 2 size) to 10 million (and N x 10 size) and so forth. That's because size + distance are proportionate, and there was no proof of distance. Recently NASA claims to have sent some probe to the sun. But NASA is so thick with fraud (their Mars rovers are PROVEN frauds), there's no reason to believe them ... unless you just WANT to believe them.
-
BTW, with as much as it's claimed that this has been "established" science forever, the hypotheses regarding the size of the sun and its distance from the earth have change radically over the years, from 1 million miles away (and N size) to 2 milion (and N x 2 size) to 10 million (and N x 10 size) and so forth. That's because size + distance are proportionate, and there was no proof of distance. Recently NASA claims to have sent some probe to the sun. But NASA is so thick with fraud (their Mars rovers are PROVEN frauds), there's no reason to believe them ... unless you just WANT to believe them.
^ This
Kindergarten telescopes must have been at fault.
-
You put up your own false standards of evidence but ABSOLUTELY ignore the problems cited in those paragraphs I posted above, and in doing so you completely ignore and reject the scientific method. Scientific Method starts with obsevations and evidence. There's volumes of evidence that falsifies the globe. So with the globe model falsified by the evidence, the next step is to create other hypotheses to explain this evidence. FEs hypothesize something similar to a Gleason layout. We do not have proof for all of it, and other FEs have come up with other hypotheses.
But you completely ignore the evidence that falsifies the NASA ball earth. You cling to Globe even after it's been falsified, without even bothering to try refuting the evidence ... because you "believe", aka WANT to "believe" something. True "belief" is based on evidence. You could claim, "Until the Flat Earthers fly to Mars and prove that it's not a physical planet, it's a physical planet ... despite any other evidence to the contrary."
I said the Gleason REFLECTS reality and brought evidence to bear in its favor. Your assertion that Gleason is a mess (asserting that England is too far North, etc.), that is simply your opinion ... again put out there gratuitously and without any proof. If you'd bother to have a look at the various projections, you'll see that someone used to one projection, when suddently presented with a different one, would think it "wrong". On the Mercator that everyone grew up with and were brainwashed into thinking was real, well Galls-Peters made the same claim about it, that Africa and South America and Australia were the WRONG SIZE.
But you choose to believe what you believe because you want to. You're clearly not studying the evidence with an open mind.
I repeat, come up with plausible explanations for the two major points I cited above that completely falsify ball earth and I'm all ears, but I could hardly care less about what you "believe" and gratuitously assert witout a shred of evidence.
Sorry, but you have it completely backwards, there are NOT “volumes” of evidence that falsify a GE, but there ARE volumes that render a FE almost impossible to believe. That is why there isn’t a model that any sane person can wrap his mind around. ***NO DISRESPECT INTENDED***. Frankly, I’m completely nonplussed that a man of your intelligence can so easily be swayed into believing such an asinine theory. The only reason I give it a modicuм of time is because I *DO* respect and give credence to your opinions.
The scientific method was used to understand and synthesize a GE model long before our Lord walked on this Earth. You act like the GE is something new that was made from whole cloth, that is patently false. What IS new is a resurgence of a hair brain notion that creates MANY more problems than it supposedly solves.
Yes, I will stand by what I wrote.
-
Forget about NASA or high Math. Issue was resolved by sailors in the 15th Century being able to travel North and South by just watching the moon. Example: quarter crescent moonset, looking towards the West, at the equator the line between the illuminated and dark sections is horizontal. If you travel North or South that line is inclined. At the poles it's vertical. The features on the surface also "rotate". You can ask someone in New Zealand and someone else in Canada how they perceive the inclination and they will give opposite answers. Excuse my English, not my mother language.
-
So, I cited earlier a discussion of different map projections here.
https://geoawesomeness.com/best-map-projection/
Author of this article asserts that THIS "AuthaGraph Projection" (below) is the "hands-down most accurate map projection in existence".
(https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Authagraph.jpg)
Have a look at the distatnce between Australia and South America. Looks a lot more like the distance also on the Gleason projection.
And then he adds this:
Nonetheless, AuthaGraph realistically represents all oceans and continents, including the neglected Antarctica. And while the general shape of the continents is maintained, you will notice that their orientation is skewing upwards – as if in a smile!
So he remarks about how this most accurate projection in existence shows the top continents curving in a semi-circle (smile) ... similar to an FE model. Fact that the Southern Hemisphere expands and the continents bend away from one another is highly indicate of an FE model. If you close the loop at the top a little bit, you're back to an Azimuthal Equidistant projection. Of course, Australia is once again an anomaly. In Globe theory, you should be able to travel south from Australia to Antarctica. How does that work on this map? In point of fact, I think you can get to the ice wall from Australia, and the fallacy here is in depicting Antarctica as an island continent.
Bottom line: EVERY map projection has issues.
Then there's that pesky little problem for Globers to explain why on the official flight tracking systems, all the planes disappear off actual tracking and enter simulation mode once they leave being over land in the Southern Hemisphere. Why? Is there no GPS in the Southern Hemisphere?
-
Forget about NASA or high Math. Issue was resolved by sailors in the 15th Century being able to travel North and South by just watching the moon. Example: quarter crescent moonset, looking towards the West, at the equator the line between the illuminated and dark sections is horizontal. If you travel North or South that line is inclined. At the poles it's vertical. The features on the surface also "rotate". You can ask someone in New Zealand and someone else in Canada how they perceive the inclination and they will give opposite answers. Excuse my English, not my mother language.
Not really following the point, but this appears to be based on a few assumptions, among others, that the "moon" always hovers face down and parallel to the Flat plane of the earth. That would not explain the phases of the moon either. It's also neglecting perspective and the relative location of the moon, which is depicted flasely in the FE sketch as being directly overhead of the observer. So, for instance, if the observer stick figure was at "N" position, but the moon was over "Equator" position, you would definitely see a moon phase that would be perceived as a tilt. So I'm not sure what this crayon drawing along with unsubstantiated claim that 15th century sailors used it somehow proves. But of course you get a thumbs up from some Globe zealot. Honestly, I'm not even sure you're saying that this proves globe or flat based on what you described.
At the same time, FEs have demonstrated that Sextant navigation (the standard method for navigation in those days) is not possible on a globe due to the angles that would be involved if the earth curved downward. NOBODY was doing calculations for globe-curve declination when using the Sextant.
Any discussion of the moon from Globers tends to be based on the assumption of what it is and its path. But there's strong evidence that the moon is not a solid object, but either a plasma or a form of projection onto the firmament. Stars have been observed (by professional astronomers and reported in astronomy journals) passing into the "dark face" of the moon while remaining visible, i.e. suggesting that the dark part of the moon is not a solid object, but perhaps something missing or not illuminated depending on the phases. There are just too many begging-the-question assumptions about the moon.
Oh, another one is the claim that only a spherical object can cast a round shadow. Uhm, no. Not when the object onto which it's being cast is also a sphere. Experiments demonstrate that shadows of spheres when imposed onto spheres actually result in a straight line (where the two sphericities cancel one another out). So the shadow of the earth sphere onto the moon sphere should actually be a straight line.
-
Not really following the point, but this appears to be based on a few assumptions, among others, that the "moon" always hovers face down and parallel to the Flat plane of the earth. That would not explain the phases of the moon either. It's also neglecting perspective and the relative location of the moon, which is depicted flasely in the FE sketch as being directly overhead of the observer. So, for instance, if the observer stick figure was at "N" position, but the moon was over "Equator" position, you would definitely see a moon phase that would be perceived as a tilt. So I'm not sure what this crayon drawing along with unsubstantiated claim that 15th century sailors used it somehow proves. But of course you get a thumbs up from some Globe zealot. Honestly, I'm not even sure you're saying that this proves globe or flat based on what you described.
At the same time, FEs have demonstrated that Sextant navigation (the standard method for navigation in those days) is not possible on a globe due to the angles that would be involved if the earth curved downward. NOBODY was doing calculations for globe-curve declination when using the Sextant.
(I wish I had better vocabulary to explain better...). Along with the inclination, the features of the moon seem to rotate. If 2 observers in different hemispheres take a picture of the moon at the same time, the "ears of the bunny" will point to opposite directions. In a flat earth model, the ears would point always in the same direction no matter the relative position of the observer.
-
(I wish I had better vocabulary to explain better...). Along with the inclination, the features of the moon seem to rotate. If 2 observers in different hemispheres take a picture of the moon at the same time, the "ears of the bunny" will point to opposite directions. In a flat earth model, the ears would point always in the same direction no matter the relative position of the observer.
Hi MM,
This 5 minute video gives an explanation for that on Flat Earth:
WHY DOES THE MOON APPEAR UPSIDE-DOWN IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
And this 13 minute video explains why a sextant only works on a Flat Earth:
FLAT EARTH PROOF - 2021 YEAR OF THE SEXTANT
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
-
Just to let you know, I didn’t downvote you.
As for issues with the GE model, sure there are unanswered problems and I certainly question science, or what purports to be science today, but GE is NOT a new thing, it is ancient and was and is believed by nearly all ancient and modern scholars. The GE model may not be perfect, but it works pretty darn well and it answers MOST all of the questions with the movements of the heavens.
If you, Ladislaus, or anyone else want to discard the GE model and believe the Earth is flat, be my guest, it contradicts no teaching of the Church that I know of, but if you feel you must abandon it , for sanity’s sake you better have a reasonable working model to replace it. ANY FE model that I have seen is preposterous and has such enormous holes that multiple trucks can be driven through it.
QVD, isn't Heliocentrism an ancient thing?
And after all these years and billions of dollars spent, they can't give an explanation for some of the very simple questions I posted? I mean these are questions any child would ask.
And hundreds more besides.
As for map accuracy, have you looked at Greenland on various maps? Or Africa? There are wild variations.
There are some very good models I've seen that explain how eclipses and the stars work on a flat earth.
Anyway, keep an open mind and keep asking questions.
-
(I wish I had better vocabulary to explain better...). Along with the inclination, the features of the moon seem to rotate. If 2 observers in different hemispheres take a picture of the moon at the same time, the "ears of the bunny" will point to opposite directions. In a flat earth model, the ears would point always in the same direction no matter the relative position of the observer.
Not true. The moon rotates like a wheel almost 180 degrees every night.
-
Hi MM,
This 5 minute video gives an explanation for that on Flat Earth:
WHY DOES THE MOON APPEAR UPSIDE-DOWN IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
And this 13 minute video explains why a sextant only works on a Flat Earth:
FLAT EARTH PROOF - 2021 YEAR OF THE SEXTANT
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
Good video from DuBay in the first link. I've always found the "tidal lock" theory for why we have only ever seen the same face of the moon for at least hundreds of years ... to be utterly preposterous. This would have to mean that the moon's alleged rotation would have to be synchronized TO THE SECOND with its revolution around the earth, and this despite the fact that scientists claim it's inching away from the earth. As it inches away each year, it would have to slightly slow its rotation to keep the same face. If this rotation were even a second or two off each day, then over the course of years, decades, centuries, the face we see would certainly have changed radically.
DuBay's quick reference to the International Flat Earth Research Society's experimentation regardinng the slightly-changing shape of the moon (from perfect sphere) is intriguing. I wish he had gone into it more.
Shockingly, I could not find it via Google, but Yandex returned the following website -- https://ifers.forumotion.com/
PS: Your second link is actually the same as the first. I'd be interested to see the Sextant video also.
-
Wouldn't that have been a very important and pertinent thing to note in his 700 page book intended to disprove the Flat Earth? Hm...
When was the last time Sungenis espoused lunar landing denial publicly?
If he does believe it he certainly managed to never tell me so in any of his docuмentaries, books, videos and articles I've read from him.
Is that just a coincidence or does he crave that all-important scientific respectability?
So his book portrays FEs as some conspiratorial loons but he neglects to mention he doesn't believe in the moon landing? GIVE ME A BREAK!
Thanks for your inquiry ServusInutilisDomini.
If you would take a look at Sungenis' relatively recent book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church (https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church-e-book-pdf/ (https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church-e-book-pdf/)) you would clearly realize that Sungenis has not made any sort of peace with the moneyed corrupt scientific establishment. Just the opposite!
Sungenis has been at war with the $/scientific establishment (and not just on the geocentrism issue) long before CathInfo came into existence. He has consistently called them out and he called them out in a major way in his huge Galileo Was Wrong -- The Church Was Right book in which he clearly demonstrated for example that the numero uno iconic god of modern science the Jew Albert Einstein was a major fraud/plagiarizer, serial adulterer, wife abuser and one who abandoned his out of wedlock daughter since infancy. He went on to describe how the scientific establishment has been notoriously compromised in countless ways both on a personal level and on an institutional level.
Sungenis has personally made himself easily accessible to the public who wish to question him on things. It's a real shame that his detractors on CathInfo do not take advantage of this opportunity to air their grievances, differences, and questions with him personally. He has a great track record of not shying away from difficult/inconvenient questions, but don't take my word for it inquire of him yourself.
I guarantee you that Sungenis does not in your words, "crave that all-important scientific respectability." One who apparently did crave it was Karl Keating to whom Sungenis wrote the following letter, after which Keating eventually went on an all out sustained rampage against Sungenis for Sungenis supposed great error of promoting geocentrism.
Dear Editor,
Re This Rock 7-8 2003:
Fr. Stravinskas is a real stand-up guy, as he lets the real Vatican II stand up to view, shattering myths of interpretation by both Catholic left and right wings. Bravo, Fr. Peter; you are aptly named, an apologetic rock.
Contrarily and sadly, Karl Keating takes a severe doctrinal left turn in the following article as he escorts us on an emotional trip through the Grand Canyon. The majestic view and minuscule evidence of erosion seen now justify a quantum leap off the rim of sound theology and science into a logical chasm. With a touch of New Age affectation, the modernist mantra of an old Earth is embraced: the secular dogma of uniformitarianism, a mouthful that implies “the present is always the key to the past.”
Mr. Keating is apparently unaware of a new breed of creation apologists, like those at the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at www.kolbecenter.org (https://www.kolbecenter.org/), who have rediscovered the creation truth where it always was, in the Magisterial view of Revelation, before the waves of modernism inundated Catholic thought. The charge of irrational “fundamentalism” leveled against some “Young Earth” Catholics is not applicable to these Leonine defenders of the Catholic doctrine of creation. Indeed, the charge has been heard before and answered on Kolbe’s website.
The defenders of creation have independent and compelling arguments for special creation from Revelation—the real alternative to Darwinism, not theistic evolution—and for a young Earth from objective natural science, with no need to link the two in rejecting evolution and the old earth. Their belief in a young earth flows from a literal reading of Genesis according to the exegetical principles of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus, reinforced by the overwhelming majority of the Fathers of the Church, whose interpretations informed the orthodox Magisterial view for 1900 years. This view is now apparently all wrong—an about-face that has sowed seeds of doubt in the Catholic community as to what other errors the Rock of Peter may have endorsed in the past. For example, the Scriptural revisionists say that the Hebrew word yom, thought by the faithful for millennia to mean day, has been corrected by today's science speculations to mean eon. Yet in Arcanum 5 Pope Leo XIII said:
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth....
Poor Pope Leo lived in the pre-modern era and didn't know that the orthodox belief of the Church on literal interpretation of the Genesis “day” would be revised by Biblical critics and by well-meaning but misguided Catholic apologists. He only had the Spirit to guide him.
Young earth scientists avoid misinterpretation of the fossil record evidence of the Great Flood and false dating of rocks by rejecting the metaphysical premise of science modernists: immutable physical laws static forever, without exception. Defenders of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation reject evolution as totally alien to Revelation and the nature of man, implying the existence of original sin, death and decay before the Fall. The defenders of creation reject evolution by positive mutations as unproved myths, for which a specific process capable of testing has not even been proposed. Darwinism has all the value of yesterday's newspaper, its specific predictions to date: Zero. Support of evolution is a house built on sand, not one founded on rock—the rock of faith in Genesis, endorsed by the rock of ages.
Why fret that the young earth position will bring the Church into disrepute, when every day brings news of more clerical sex scandals, triggered by rejection of orthodox doctrines like biblical inerrancy? Why not anguish instead over misguided apologetics that chooses the speculation of materialists over common sense and the Word of God? We have no fear of the world's disdain; the Lord foretold that we would be mocked in His name, even as He was.
The true history of the Grand Canyon cannot be uncovered by observing present-day natural processes. Indeed, a recent geological event highlights the danger of an uncritical faith in uniformitarianism. We invite the author to go 800 miles northwest to Mt. St. Helens and reflect on the “Little Grand Canyon,” 100 feet deep, lined with multiple strata, a small version of the Grand Canyon only 2% of its size. Imagine that this canyon was formed over millions of years by a trickle of water slowly slicing through the sediments. Then let reality set in: The canyon was formed in a few months by a huge mudslide after the eruption, followed by water flowing from the melting snowcap runoff. The strata layers in the mud were exposed in less than a day! Pick up a rock from the lava domes that formed there. Then realize that modernist claims to prove terrestrial ages in gigαyears by radiodating rocks were made to look quite foolish when geology labs dated these very lava rocks from the mountain as having been formed up to 3 million years ago! These rocks were undeniably formed 20 years ago... Yet wasn't the author concerned that “young earth” Catholics would bring the Church into disrepute?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.asp)
Rather than conjuring up the irenic reflections described in the article, an orthodox believer in the patristic understanding of Genesis would wonder at the power of the global deluge recorded before his eyes in the walls of the Grand Canyon. He would tremble in awe at the visible proof of the Father's wrath at sinful mankind and at the power of His mighty hand, unleashed in Noah's Flood, gouging out this awesome scar using only the first matter of creation—water!
Incorporating evolutionary propaganda with “visceral” apologetics—completely divorced from objective faith and reason—can only produce an ineffective type of apologetics—an inevitable harbinger of future apologies.
What do Andy Warhol and Karl Keating have in Common?
In the July/August 2003 issue of This Rock, founder and president of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, says that advocates of a young earth (i.e., an earth 10,000 years old, or less) are akin to those who “garner for themselves Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame.”1 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn1) As Mr. Keating opens his piece, besides his pejorative use of a quotation from Andy Warhol, he sprinkles his introductory paragraphs with caustic words such as “fundamentalist,” “eccentricity,” “new baggage,” and other such verbiage. It wouldn’t be so bad, except that Mr. Keating is hardly qualified to draw the grandiose conclusions he reaches in his article. He has little or no science background or training, and he doesn’t advertise a theological degree.
Mr. Keating admits in his August 12 “e-letter” that because of his expose on the age of the earth “some of This Rock’s readers of the article threw up their hands and declared that Keating has sided with atheists and secularists and has gone over into the evolutionist camp.” Although Keating never denies that he is in the evolutionist’s camp, he tries to diffuse the complaints by contending that, even if evolution was not correct, “we still don’t need to believe in a young earth.” By shifting the burden away from evolution to the age of the earth, Keating thinks he can save face in front of his nervous audience, but at the same time, he creates enough doubt about a literal interpretation of Genesis that his reader finds himself the victim of a clever shell game.
Interestingly enough, This Rock magazine has made a trademark for itself in the last 20 years with a feature entitled “The Fathers Know Best.” In this feature, Mr. Keating shows that when the Fathers were presented with passages of Scripture that non-Catholics insisted on turning into symbols they doggedly adhered to the literal interpretation, no matter how absurd it appeared to their critics. For example, Catholics have been ridiculed for centuries for adhering to literal interpretations of such passages as Matthew 26:26 (“This is my body”), or others such as John 3:5 (“unless you are born of water and the Spirit”) or John 20:23 (“whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven”). Despite the criticism, for 2,000 years the Catholic Church has never changed her belief about those passages. Why? Because that’s what was handed down to her by the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church. When it comes to the earth’s origins, however, suddenly Mr. Keating gets cold feet. Even though ALL of the Fathers believed in a young earth, and none of them espoused a theory of evolution, Mr. Keating feels not the slightest compunction in dismissing their testimony.
Moreover, rather than admit to his audience that he is rejecting the Fathers’ testimony on the origins question, Mr. Keating forces another shell game on his readers. He puts the blame for belief in a young earth on Anglican bishop James Ussher who, according to Mr. Keating, “tallied the ages of the people names in Genesis...and worked backward from known dates in ancient history.” Thus, Mr. Keating makes it appear as if this is all a Protestant invention. From the carefully selected information in his article, his readers would never know it was the Fathers of the Catholic Church who, after the ancient Jews, were the very ones who adopted the literal reading of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, fifteen hundred years before Ussher was born (1581-1656).
The Fathers Against the Greek Evolutionists:
Not only did the Fathers not opt for an old earth or espouse evolution, they were in direct opposition to the Greek philosophers and academicians who, as Washington Times book reviewer Charles Russeaux states, (commenting on Jack Repcheck’s new book on dating the earth):
Seeing seashells on Malta’s mountains led Xenophanes to formulate his ideas of geological change in the earth fifth century BC and earned him the title “Father of geology and paleontology.” About 600 years before Christ, Anaximander theorized that humans evolved from fish.2 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn2)
Hence, long before Darwin, the Greeks had been espousing the theory of evolution for quite a while. Seeing these kinds of teachings among the Greeks, the Fathers wasted no time in denouncing them.3 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn3) The best critic of the Greek evolutionary ideas was St. Basil of Caesarea. He writes concerning the Greeks:
Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules...by their union formed the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies owing their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion...Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that all was given up to chance.4 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn4)
Having similar experiences with the Greek scientists, Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235), writes:
But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno...affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously....And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity...”5 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn5)
Thus St. Basil concludes: The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another.6 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn6)
(https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn6)
Hence, in this instance, Mr. Keating keeps intellectual company not with the Fathers, but with the Greeks whose ideas were condemned by the Fathers. In any case, since Mr. Keating is offering a new twist in the Creation/Evolution debate, that is, that “one does not need to posit a young earth to argue against evolution,” he insists that:
If evolution could not have occurred over the last 6,000 years, is there some dynamic that insists it likely would have occurred if the time in question were 60,000 years or six million years or six billion years? Even if one works from the position that evolution is a false theory, there is no evident reason to plump for the young earth hypothesis.
What Mr. Keating casually dismisses, of course, is that for the last 1900 years Catholics have used the testimony of Scripture as the basis for why they believe the earth is a few thousand years old, and most of them did so without any recourse to the theory of evolution. They simply believed Scripture’s testimony as it was handed down by the Fathers and medievals. But dependence on Scripture and patristics doesn’t seem to be in Mr. Keating’s repertoire. Jaded as he is by the modernist hermeneutic and theoretical science, Mr. Keating’s “Bible” has become the Grand Canyon – or at least, HIS interpretation of the Grand Canyon.
Keating’s Trip to the Grand Canyon:
We find that Mr. Keating’s whole tirade against “fundamentalists” and “Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame” seekers is centered on one trip he recently took to the Grand Canyon. He writes:
In the part of the Grand Canyon where I was, the drop from the rim to the river was 4,600 feet, or 55,200 inches. If one inch were lost per century, it would have taken 5,520,000 years to form the Grand Canyon. (This is within an order of magnitude of the figure geologists give. For my purposes here, this rough approximation is sufficient). Now consider advocates of a young earth. They claim the earth is only 6,000 years old. If so, for the Grand Canyon to be as deep as it is, it would have to have been worn away not at one inch per century but at 920 inches per century.
Later in another paragraph he elaborates:
Lying in my sleeping bag, staring up at the Redwall, contemplating the massiveness and solidity of it all, I knew viscerally that what I saw was not formed recently. It could not have been. I did not have to engage in the thought experiment to realize that, of course. The hike from rim to river and back again contained its own internal testimony. Anyone with open eyes and aching feet had a proof that was strong even if not syllogistic. I had no need to know with exactitude how old the earth is, but the rocky halls about me testified that it is far older than 6,000 years – or even a hundred times that.
Although Mr. Keating tries to distance himself from evolutionists, nevertheless, he must adopt their arguments on the formation of the Grand Canyon, for that is all he has to depend on. Consequently, Keating will find himself in line with the theory of James Hutton (d. 1797) and Charles Lyell (d. 1875) who postulated that the rate of erosion and sedimentation in past time was the same as it is today. Otherwise known as “uniformitarianism,” it is the belief that since the beginning of earth’s existence, all natural processes have remained relatively constant and unchanged. The opposing view is catastrophism, which is held by many biblical scientists. (Even a few secular scientists have adopted at least portions of it).7 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn7) It is their view that grand edifices such as the Grand Canyon were formed by sudden and cataclysmic disruptions in the earth’s normal processes. The most likely of these cataclysms is the world-wide deluge recorded in Genesis 7-9, which according to the Genesis genealogy, happened between 4500-7000 years ago, and which formed its characteristic rock structures in a matter of days or weeks.
Assuming, as they did, that uniformitarianism was correct, Hutton and Lyell calculated the age of various strata around the world from known rates of sedimentary deposition. There was one problem, however. Their calculations were hypothetical, since all the differing stages of strata deposits that they assumed as evidence for their theory were never found together in one geological formation. Deciding to ignore this anomaly, evolutionists proceeded to date rock strata based on the principle of superposition, that is, that lower strata were older than higher strata, even though they had no proof that this was correct.
The upshot? If uniformitarianism is wrong, then Mr. Keating’s dependence on long periods of erosion to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon is wrong. Since there is no proof for uniformitarianism, then, as much as Mr. Keating wants to distance himself from evolutionists, he still sinks with their ship. We will see how this develops as we examine the rest of Mr. Keating’s article.
How Was the Tonto Group Formed?
Later in his article Mr. Keating describes his visit to the Tonto Platform of the Grand Canyon. He writes:
Other layers are made of debris or sharply eroded, softer rock and are caned at about 45 degrees. The Tonto Platform, about a thousand feet above the river, is the closest one comes to the horizontal, but it undulates constantly and is never truly level...At an elevation of about 3,000 feet, the scrub-covered Tonto Platform – which is nowhere really level – allows one to traverse the Grand Canyon more or less horizontally. The Tonto Trail...runs for about 92 miles.
For the record, evolutionists believe that the Tonto edifice of the Grand Canyon was formed during the 70-million year Cambrian period, since it contains many fossils associated with the “Cambrian explosion.” But again, this is all based on the unproven and anomalous theory of uniformitarianism. Evolutionists have found no fossils before or after the Cambrian period, and the fossils in the Cambrian period appear without any evidence of preexisting ancestral forms.
The Work of Johannes Walther:
Other secular scientists have proposed a different scenario. A few years after the work of Hutton and Lyell came the geological studies performed by Johannes Walther in the latter nineteenth century. Walther began his studies by examining sedimentary deposits that stretched from land to ocean. To test a hypothesis, Walther drilled out a vertical cylinder of sediment midway in the advancement. He found that the various layers in the cylinder were in the same order as the leading edge of the advancement into the ocean. From this evidence he reasoned that the layers were being laid horizontally (not vertically, as Hutton and Lyell had proposed).
Walther performed the same testing in the bay of Naples. He found that after drilling out a vertical column of sediment, it revealed the same sequence of layers as the sediments lying horizontally. He concluded that Hutton and Lyell’s theory (i.e., that layers on the top were forming later than the layers on the bottom) was wrong. After Walther, however, little experimentation was done to exploit his discovery.
In 1965, however, the American geologist Edwin McKee found evidence of Walther’s horizontal sedimentation in one of the branches of the Colorado River after it overflowed its banks from a torrential rain. The stratified layers reached a thickness of twelve feet in only forty-eight hours, and showed the same particle sorting and bedding planes as in all other sites previously investigated by Hutton and Lyell. Hutton and Lyell would have had to interpret McKee’s evidence as interruptions in sedimentation wherein one stratum would have hardened before the next layer was placed on top, but, of course, this type of hardening would be impossible within the space of forty-eight hours.
Horizontal sedimentation was also confirmed by experimental evidence from coastal marine floods. In the 1970's and 1980's several teams of scientists bored vertical columns in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. To their amazement, they found that their samples confirmed Walther’s theory. Thus, not only were layers of sediment being laid horizontally in bays and beaches, but also in the deep sea. Germane to our topic is the fact that the same tests were performed on the Grand Canyon, and with the same results–the deposits showed evidence of having been laid down horizontally, not vertically.
With this evidence in hand, various other scientists set out to confirm or deny this intriguing phenomenon. In the 1994 publication, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, geologist Stephen Austin offers an explanation by citing the work of sedimentologist D. M. Rubin on the relation between hydraulic conditions and stratified structures in San Francisco Bay, which Rubin had originally published in Sedimentary Geology. Rubin found that with a certain speed of current, depth of water, and size of sedimentary particles, a specific sequence of layers was formed. Austin also refers to Jay Sufford’s work in Sedimentary Petrology, which summarized a series of thirty-nine flume experiments on the relations between hydraulics and stratification, and which found the same results as Rubin.8 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn8)
To his amazement, Austin discovered the same sequential depositing of layers in the sedimentary rocks of the Grand Canyon as those in Rubin’s experiments. One of these was the 800 kilometer sample of the Grand Canyon, which Keating recognized as the Tonto Platform. It comprises three layers which extend east to west. The upper layer is made of limestone; the middle layer of clay; and the lower layer of sandstone. As predicted by Walther, the same sequence of layers is found side-by-side as those found from top to bottom.
From this evidence, Austin determined the hydraulic conditions which would have been necessary to form the horizontal layers observed in the Tonto Group. Austin found that a velocity of water moving at two meters per second, and causing the water to rise nearly 2,000 meters above the ocean level, would have been sufficient. He further found that all this could happen within a matter of two days (not millions of years). Not surprisingly, the velocity of the water needed to build the Tonto Group corresponded precisely with the velocities discovered in the thirty-nine flume experiments performed by Jay Sufford.
How Was the Grand Canyon Formed?
Thus, sedimentation normally occurs as follows. Advancing water travels at differing velocities. Heavier or coarser particles deposit before lighter particles in a fast-moving current. As the water level increases, the speed of the current decreases, and at that point the sediments deposited are proportionately finer, yet all of the particles would be deposited at or near the same time, resulting in the sandstone-clay-limestone sequence we see in the Grand Canyon. During the point at which the river or ocean arrived at its maximum level there would be little or no current. The finest particles would deposit at a rate of about 2 centimeters per day. (This, of course, shows that superposition does, indeed, occur, but not over millions of years). This process would be interrupted when, as the waters began to subside, the current reappeared.
The curious feature about the layers in the Grand Canyon, and all other sedimentary depositions, is that the layers are almost perfectly bordered against one another. That is, you see a few vertical feet of limestone layer with hardly any variation in the width of the layer extending for hundreds of feet. The next layer of clay, or sandstone, is just as perfect. That doesn’t happen very easily with vertical sedimentation dependent on the bottom layer hardening before the top layer is added. Conversely, it occurs quite easily in horizontal sedimentation.
Moreover, it is quite unlikely that erosion over millions of years could have produced what we see in the Grand Canyon, for erosion is not locale specific. It erodes all that it touches uniformly without distinction. Cataclysms, on the other hand, are locale specific, as well as possessing the tremendous forces necessary to make dramatic changes in the landscape (as we see in the Grand Canyon), and they do their damage in a matter of days or weeks, not millions of years.
As for the huge gorges in the Grand Canyon, they would have been formed as the water from the cataclysm began to recede. As it recedes, it creates velocities of current that are sufficient to cut deep gorges into the lightly-packed sediments deposited during initial stratification. This does not happen today on a similar scale because the sediments, over thousands of years, have become hardened, and thus relatively resistant to effacing.
I say “relatively resistant” to effacing, because not too long ago we had even more proof that gorges the size of those in the Grand Canyon can be formed in a very short time. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens erupted. The most remarkable things have happened in the years following the eruption. In the May 2000 issue of National Geographic, geological scientist Peter Frenzen writes concerning a canyon cut by the water flow created by the eruption: “You’d expect a hard rock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old, but this was cut in less than a decade.” Not only were the geologists shocked, but ecologists were just as surprised. Ecologist David Wood writes: “All of us were surprised at the rate at which this landscape was colonized again. We were thinking, Gosh, how long is it going to be before anything come back here?” The rest of the article answers the question: “Within just a few years scientists found flora and fauna pioneering in the niches created by the eruption’s various geological disturbances.”9 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn9)
In conclusion, apparently unknown to Mr. Keating, there is abundant experimental evidence to suggest that the Grand Canyon was made in a matter of weeks or a few years, and not over millions of years. Conversely, since the stratification theory used by evolutionists has never been proven experimentally, only assumed, they can raise few legitimate objections to these findings. As a result, their whole theory of the geologic column, including the multi-millions of years separating the Cambrian from such periods as the Jurassic or Pleistocene, will have to be discarded until they can provide experimental results to support their geological speculations.10 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-kolbe-center-responds-to-this-rock-and-karl-keating/#_ftn10) In the meantime, I wish to thank Mr. Keating for allowing me to make this evidence available to the public.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A. Catholic Apologetics International
******************************************************************************************************
Sungenis on NASA's connection to Faked Moon Landing via this video on his site: https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CAI-Stanley-Kubrick-and-Moon-Landings.jpg (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CAI-Stanley-Kubrick-and-Moon-Landings.jpg)
Sungenis on NASA's connection to UFOs and Crop Circles: https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sungenis-on-UFOs-and-Crop-Circles.png
(https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sungenis-on-UFOs-and-Crop-Circles.png)
-
As for map accuracy, have you looked at Greenland on various maps? Or Africa? There are wild variations.
Yes, Greenland is broad on the top, but if you look at a globe, not a flat map, you will get an accurate depiction of what that land mass and all land masses look like in reality.
About 30 years ago an old Catholic friend, who helped bring me to tradition, tried to convince me that heliocentrism was false. I said to her: “How can that be, then scientists could never predict eclipses or any other movements of the heavens with any accuracy?” She had no answer. A couple of years passed by and a mutual and very learned friend tried to convince me again, but this time he answered my objection by telling me that the geocentric model does predict movements with the same accuracy as the heliocentric model. After that I did a bit of study on the subject and was convinced of geocentrism in a very short time. I relate this story to show that I have no objection accepting seemingly bizarre theories as long as it can be shown to be reasonable.
The FE theory is not remotely in the same category. Not even close.
My objection: “ The mast on a ship disappears last over the horizon.”
FE answer: “Didn’t you know 5 foot waves out in a distance can hide a 100 foot tall ship?”
My objection: “How do you explain how the Sun slowly disappears from bottom to top on the horizon without getting smaller? How do you explain how it can still be light in the West Coast and dark on the East Coast?”
FE answer: “Didn’t you know that the Sun is actually a spotlight?”
My objection: “How do you explain the different phases of the Moon?
FE answer: “Didn’t you know that the Moon is actually translucent?!!!”
Please! I know I was born at night, it just wasn’t last night!
-
Not true. The moon rotates like a wheel almost 180 degrees every night.
You are correct but the rotation you're referring to is East-West wise. The one I'm talking about is North-South wise, at the same Longitud.
-
Hi MM,
This 5 minute video gives an explanation for that on Flat Earth:
WHY DOES THE MOON APPEAR UPSIDE-DOWN IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
And this 13 minute video explains why a sextant only works on a Flat Earth:
FLAT EARTH PROOF - 2021 YEAR OF THE SEXTANT
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRVuIKU21IEU/
Ooops! Sorry. Here is the 13 minute video explaining the
sextant:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/x3qknB0XWOnA/
-
You are correct but the rotation you're referring to is East-West wise. The one I'm talking about is North-South wise, at the same Longitud.
No the rotation is not east/west. The moon rolls like a wheel and individual features on top early in the evening roll along until they are near the bottom just before dawn. I've never seen it finish 180 degrees on the best nights where it shows for 10 or more hours so it probably takes 24 hours to make it all the way around. I know it rolls north/south because I've videoed it and watched other videos on youtube. There was a weather guy named Schlotthauer who videoed the longest eclipse in recent history and you can see it perfectly, but his content is no longer online.
-
Yes, Greenland is broad on the top, but if you look at a globe, not a flat map, you will get an accurate depiction of what that land mass and all land masses look like in reality.
About 30 years ago an old Catholic friend, who helped bring me to tradition, tried to convince me that heliocentrism was false. I said to her: “How can that be, then scientists could never predict eclipses or any other movements of the heavens with any accuracy?” She had no answer. A couple of years passed by and a mutual and very learned friend tried to convince me again, but this time he answered my objection by telling me that the geocentric model does predict movements with the same accuracy as the heliocentric model. After that I did a bit of study on the subject and was convinced of geocentrism in a very short time. I relate this story to show that I have no objection accepting seemingly bizarre theories as long as it can be shown to be reasonable.
The FE theory is not remotely in the same category. Not even close.
My objection: “ The mast on a ship disappears last over the horizon.”
FE answer: “Didn’t you know 5 foot waves out in a distance can hide a 100 foot tall ship?”
My objection: “How do you explain how the Sun slowly disappears from bottom to top on the horizon without getting smaller? How do you explain how it can still be light in the West Coast and dark on the East Coast?”
FE answer: “Didn’t you know that the Sun is actually a spotlight?”
My objection: “How do you explain the different phases of the Moon?
FE answer: “Didn’t you know that the Moon is actually translucent?!!!”
Please! I know I was born at night, it just wasn’t last night!
Hmmm...as for the question about the mast disappearing last, I recall discussing with you the way the vanishing point perspective works for any object moving away from the viewer. As the object reaches the vanishing point on the horizon it disappears from the bottom up.
I've never heard anyone make the claim that 5 foot waves are involved. lol
The Nikon P900 can bring ships into view from distances that should be hidden behind a solid physical curve.
As for the sun setting without getting smaller, it's appearance is affected by the atmospheric conditions as this short video explains:
4min 7sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6kOMNFz0TpPs/
Conversely, the question can be asked, if the sun is millions of miles away, why does it often appear to be get smaller and smaller in size as it sets?? If it's as large as they say and as far away as they say, a few miles of distance shouldn't make a change in it's appearance.
Here is more on how the sun over Flat Earth:
19min 59sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NYNoDUv8llW6/
Perhaps you can explain why the sun can't be smaller and like a flashlight? Is there a reason that simply isn't possible.
There are times you can see stars or clouds through the moon so it does appear to be translucent. In any case, the moon rocks NASA brought back were tested and found to be petrified wood. lol
Do you have any videos of science experiments showing a body of water without a container or how water sticks to a ball or how buildings and boats and people can be upside down on the ball and not notice it? I wasn't born last night either and those things seem quite preposterous! lol ::shrug::
-
Hmmm...as for the question about the mast disappearing last, I recall discussing with you the way the vanishing point perspective works for any object moving away from the viewer. As the object reaches the vanishing point on the horizon it disappears from the bottom up.
I've never heard anyone make the claim that 5 foot waves are involved. lol
The Nikon P900 can bring ships into view from distances that should be hidden behind a solid physical curve.
As for the sun setting without getting smaller, it's appearance is affected by the atmospheric conditions as this short video explains:
4min 7sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6kOMNFz0TpPs/
Conversely, the question can be asked, if the sun is millions of miles away, why does it often appear to be get smaller and smaller in size as it sets?? If it's as large as they say and as far away as they say, a few miles of distance shouldn't make a change in it's appearance.
Here is more on how the sun over Flat Earth:
19min 59sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NYNoDUv8llW6/
Perhaps you can explain why the sun can't be smaller and like a flashlight? Is there a reason that simply isn't possible.
There are times you can see stars or clouds through the moon so it does appear to be translucent. In any case, the moon rocks NASA brought back were tested and found to be petrified wood. lol
Do you have any videos of science experiments showing a body of water without a container or how water sticks to a ball or how buildings and boats and people can be upside down on the ball and not notice it? I wasn't born last night either and those things seem quite preposterous! lol ::shrug::
What would convince me that the videos you posted are not produced by people who are trying to perpetrate a hoax? I remember Ladislaus posting a video supposedly showing a rocket stopping as if it *softly* hit something. To me, it was no better than the videos of NASA faking the moon landings.
There are tons of videos online demonstrating GE, but I can only vouch for what I see with my own eyes and what I see is evidence of GE. I’ll give just one example: There is a lake near me that is approximately 20 miles long and 5 miles wide. I can go there anytime and observe how I can’t see the trees at the end of the lake and I even observe the trees on sides slowly go out of view. If I use binoculars I see the same thing. No waves and no vanishing point can explain this. This is an obvious demonstration of the curvature of the Earth.
-
What would convince me that the videos you posted are not produced by people who are trying to perpetrate a hoax? I remember Ladislaus posting a video supposedly showing a rocket stopping as if it *softly* hit something. To me, it was no better than the videos of NASA faking the moon landings.
There are tons of videos online demonstrating GE, but I can only vouch for what I see with my own eyes and what I see is evidence of GE. I’ll give just one example: There is a lake near me that is approximately 20 miles long and 5 miles wide. I can go there anytime and observe how I can’t see the trees at the end of the lake and I even observe the trees on sides slowly go out of view. If I use binoculars I see the same thing. No waves and no vanishing point can explain this. This is an obvious demonstration of the curvature of the Earth.
Well, I guess you would have to evaluate the evidence for yourself.
I'm happy to view any evidence you can provide although I'm skeptical they are trying to hoax me just like they hoaxed me about the earth spinning and rotating around the sun. They sure got away with that one for a long time didn't they? And they still are!
Are there videos that demonstrate a body of water without a container?? Please let me see it!
Is there one that shows a body of water that curves?
Or sticking to a ball? That would be very helpful to see.
Or planes flying upside down with no effect on the passengers?
Also, do you think this photo has a vanishing point because the building is curved?
Do these doors get smaller because they went over a curve?
(https://i.imgur.com/yZzHipS.png)
It appears the doors are disappearing from view from the bottom up.
And the ceiling lights appear to be "going down".
-
"Is there one that shows a body of water that curves?"
The beer in the glass is curved and curving right now. Autem oportet, as liquids are easily dispersed by movement, have a free surface, and take the shape of their container. If I put water inside a hollow sphere to fill it, the surface of the sphere will give the water a spherical shape.
-
"Is there one that shows a body of water that curves?"
The beer in the glass is curved and curving right now. Autem oportet, as liquids are easily dispersed by movement, have a free surface, and take the shape of their container. If I put water inside a hollow sphere to fill it, the surface of the sphere will give the water a spherical shape.
That's neat. What happens when you put the water on the outside of the sphere?
-
That's neat. What happens when you put the water on the outside of the sphere?
If you want to believe the Earth's flat, that's okay, I'm not a theologian but I've never heard that it's a heresy. People may think it's flat because it's still, and stillness may remind them of a flat surface, whereas a spherical shape may suggest to some in the subconscious a sense of "motion" ...
But water is naturally spherical itself, as it comes in particles as drops. When raindrops are falling, they tend to conform to the shape of pure space itself, which is spherical too. When they land on the surface of the Earth, they are traveling to the center. The center is equally related to all points on the surface in 3-D, and the only way that equal relation can be is if the Earth's a sphere.
How to prove that the center is equally related to all points on the surface? Because the direction called down that is perpendicular to water is the same angle and aspect for everybody around the Earth. It goes right below the feet in a universal way.
"Heavy" objects around the Earth like water fall down not because of Newtonian "gravity" but simply because they are too heavy to be supported by air.
-
the direction called down and to the center ... to the center it's the same angle and aspect for everybody and every boat around the surface of the Earth.
-
If you want to believe the Earth's flat, that's okay, I'm not a theologian but I've never heard that it's a heresy. People may think it's flat because it's still, and stillness may remind them of a flat surface, whereas a spherical shape may suggest to some in the subconscious a sense of "motion" ...
But water is naturally spherical itself, as it comes in particles as drops. When raindrops are falling, they tend to conform to the shape of pure space itself, which is spherical too. When they land on the surface of the Earth, they are traveling to the center. The center is equally related to all points on the surface in 3-D, and the only way that equal relation can be is if the Earth's a sphere.
How to prove that the center is equally related to all points on the surface? Because the direction called down that is perpendicular to water is the same angle and aspect for everybody around the Earth. It goes right below the feet in a universal way.
"Heavy" objects around the Earth like water fall down not because of Newtonian "gravity" but simply because they are too heavy to be supported by air.
Actually, as Tradman can demonstrate, the Early Church Fathers believed the earth was flat.
Plus
"The ancient Hebrews, like all the ancient peoples of the Near East, believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament
(https://i.imgur.com/QDaIy1Q.png)
Firmament is in the Bible 23 times.
Anyway, water drops are different from bodies of water which are always
LEVEL
If water is spherical then why do they use it to measure sea LEVEL
and why do builders use Water Levels?
If water is spherical that would really mess up their building plans wouldn't it?
Don't they use water because at rest it's always LEVEL?
(https://i.imgur.com/WLulWmc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wciDCfx.png)
It's been used for surveying land since ancient times:
Water Level Survey: Are You Smarter Than an Egyptian?
Share this now!
- (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjadeengineering.biz%2Fwater-level-survey-are-you-smarter-than-an-egyptian%2F&t=Water Level Survey%3A Are You Smarter Than an Egyptian%3F)
- (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Water Level Survey%3A Are You Smarter Than an)
Are you smarter than an Egyptian? If you’re not using a Water Level Survey to determine the levelness of a house, then the answer to that question is “No!”
The History of the Water Level
Historians say that the ancient Egyptians were the first to use water levels as far back as 1100 B.C while building the pyramids. The bedrock was networked with narrow trenches, then filled with water. The Egyptians understood the physics of water, that water always resigns itself to be completely level, so the waterline was marked on all the trench walls, the protrusions were cut down, and the trenches re-filled with stone to create a level base.It’s amazing that something that was engineered over 3,000 years ago could still be one of the most accurate means of determining the levelness of a home or structure. JADE uses Water Level Surveys (or Manometers) today in our structural inspections. Though they deviate quite a bit from their original inventor’s design, they are still incomparable when it comes to accuracy.
A water level survey can give precise amounts and areas of floor sag or foundation settlement. The water level is superior to a standard four-foot level in this type of application because it shows relative elevation readings throughout the entire structure. This includes around corners and relative elevations from the front entry all the way to the rear bedroom. This information can be used to pinpoint areas in the crawlspace or basement that may have problems such as misaligned load-bearing walls, damage or improper construction such as long-spanning beams or joists.
more: https://jadeengineering.biz/water-level-survey-are-you-smarter-than-an-egyptian/
So if you are building a home or a deck on the side of a mountain or hill
use water to make sure it's LEVEL and you don't end up leaning over. ;)
-
Water is always in the tiniest drops within drops. There are littlest spheres within spheres on the way to infinity even through the elasticity of air.
One should reconsider the relation of accuмulation and the infinite. Accuмulation doesn't reach the infinite or relate to it except by a pattern that's beyond all direction, such a mystery too, since there is no given direction more than any other that goes to the infinite. When all directions in the relation are equal like that, or any efforts to make any position better than another have ceased, it creates the picture of a sphere, which is also trinitarian, like the Mercedes-Benz logo.
Do you not believe in the infinite regress, do you not? I should bet that you do.
-
There are tons of videos online demonstrating GE ...
No there aren't.
Go out and get yourself a Nikon camera and see for yourself. Much of the evidence for FE is independently verifiable in that it was produced by people who had no agenda, i.e. the record long-distance photographs from 300 miles away. Person who took it was just trying to take a picture and was not an FE and didn't understand its implications. Dr. John D, who's put together the most scientific and most convincing experiments, he always announces beforehand when he's going to go out and do experiments, invites people to observe, and then livestreams them. You can find his live-streamed videos out there.
Both the 120,000 balloon footage and the rocket that just stopped were experiments conducted by people who had no agenda, for various other scientific motives ... and for fun. They were not Flat Earthers. Plenty of the videos/footage were done/taken by people who were not trying to prove anything but just wanted to send a balloon or rocket with a camera on them up as high as they could.
Speaking of the rocket that just stopped, you don't believe in a firmament even though Sacred Scripture clearly teaches it? Or do you assert that the firmament is just a word for "space" ... even though it's utterly preposterous and just one step away from Father Robinson's Local Flood. Word itself in Hebrew derives from beaten metal, and this firmament is clearly said to keep waters out from the earth. Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a literal solid firmament (vs. just being a metaphor for space), although they debated what it was made of and disagreed about whether the entire firmament rotated around the earth or whether somehow the objects IN the firmament, i.e. the stars could somehow move through it (while it stayed still) even though it was solid.
-
Any repetition of circuмstances is circular, since it's the same things that have come back around again to the same points of development in cause and effect; and the fundamental relation that everything has to the infinite is repetition, the circular again, since things don't change in relation to the infinite and
neither does the infinite change in relation to them. So the circuмstances of direction don't really change except accidentally, which shows that if there is a center in space, it must have always been, and the same, to resolve all accidents in the same way, which is to their end, also such an end the end, which is really like saying that such things as something somewhat are all on curve to the same difference between all things anyway ... and really present. To be on curve to the same difference like that between all things is not flat even for nature but bubbles and bubbles and bubbles. And so the water in Egypt ... and who has not seen it before?
-
A center in relation to space, of course, not simply a center in space, nothing so gauche as that in these elevated terms. etc.
-
Here's a fascinating discussion of that one rocket and compares it to Space Shuttle launch --
https://www.facebook.com/plainworld/videos/376300796110895
-
No there aren't.
Go out and get yourself a Nikon camera and see for yourself. Much of the evidence for FE is independently verifiable in that it was produced by people who had no agenda, i.e. the record long-distance photographs from 300 miles away. Person who took it was just trying to take a picture and was not an FE and didn't understand its implications. Dr. John D, who's put together the most scientific and most convincing experiments, he always announces beforehand when he's going to go out and do experiments, invites people to observe, and then livestreams them. You can find his live-streamed videos out there.
Both the 120,000 balloon footage and the rocket that just stopped were experiments conducted by people who had no agenda, for various other scientific motives ... and for fun. They were not Flat Earthers. Plenty of the videos/footage were done/taken by people who were not trying to prove anything but just wanted to send a balloon or rocket with a camera on them up as high as they could.
Speaking of the rocket that just stopped, you don't believe in a firmament even though Sacred Scripture clearly teaches it? Or do you assert that the firmament is just a word for "space" ... even though it's utterly preposterous and just one step away from Father Robinson's Local Flood. Word itself in Hebrew derives from beaten metal, and this firmament is clearly said to keep waters out from the earth. Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a literal solid firmament (vs. just being a metaphor for space), although they debated what it was made of and disagreed about whether the entire firmament rotated around the earth or whether somehow the objects IN the firmament, i.e. the stars could somehow move through it (while it stayed still) even though it was solid.
Sorry, but there are many videos that show ships disappearing over the horizon and demonstrating a GE. As a matter of fact the Dimond Brothers, who you agree with on many points, produced a video supporting a GE:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/50-reasons-earth-not-flat/
Just because I don’t believe some fake video of a rocket supposedly stopping in the firmament, I deny that the firmament exists? Really? You say that that the experiments using balloons and rockets where conducted by people that didn’t have an agenda. How do you know that? Do you realize there are many thousands of fake videos uploaded to YouTube every month just to get hits? Why is everything that NASA produces automatically deemed fake by you (to be clear, I don’t trust their videos either), but YouTube videos supporting a FE, produced by unknown people with an unknown agenda, are given the benefit of the doubt?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rmDj1MJyaY
-
https://vimeo.com/136682881
-
Sorry, but there are many videos that show ships disappearing over the horizon and demonstrating a GE. As a matter of fact the Dimond Brothers, who you agree with on many points, produced a video supporting a GE:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/50-reasons-earth-not-flat/
Just because I don’t believe some fake video of a rocket supposedly stopping in the firmament, I deny that the firmament exists? Really? You say that that the experiments using balloons and rockets where conducted by people that didn’t have an agenda. How do you know that? Do you realize there are many thousands of fake videos uploaded to YouTube every month just to get hits? Why is everything that NASA produces automatically deemed fake by you (to be clear, I don’t trust their videos either), but YouTube videos supporting a FE, produced by unknown people with an unknown agenda, are given the benefit of the doubt?
Sorry Lad, I just reread what I wrote, I hope I didn’t come off too angry, I didn’t intend to. 😀
-
Before this topic started being discussed in the past year or two, I never had any idea people believed such bizarre things as that space is covered by some sort of ceiling, and that the stars are basically light bulbs in this ceiling. If I had heard that some tribe in the jungles of Africa believed in such a primitive and ludicrous idea, I would have had a hard time believing it. But to see an intelligent and highly-educated American profess such beliefs really makes me question a lot of what I thought about the human race. I can also hardly believe the childlike simplicity with which Ladislaus believes seemingly anything he sees on YouTube, such as these videos he just posted.
Lad, the firmament refers to the fact that the stars are fixed relative to each other, in such a way that they all rotate around the earth without changing their position relative to each other. That is what is firm -- their relative position, which makes them appear as if they were embedded in a solid object. That's what is observable, but to say that therefore they are in some sort of glass ceiling is just absurd.
If you really take these videos of the rockets hitting the "firmament" that seriously, then how high up do you think this ceiling is? One or two of those rockets supposedly hit it without about a minute or so of launch. Wouldn't that put this ceiling about a couple thousand feet up? Is that what you think? What about air travel?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rmDj1MJyaY
At
Some of these videos are faked. For instance see the *third unmentioned* camera at the bottom at 3:42. Most of these videos can certainly be interrupted in different ways other than what the editor suggests.
-
Hmmm...as for the question about the mast disappearing last, I recall discussing with you the way the vanishing point perspective works for any object moving away from the viewer. As the object reaches the vanishing point on the horizon it disappears from the bottom up.
I've never heard anyone make the claim that 5 foot waves are involved. lol
The Nikon P900 can bring ships into view from distances that should be hidden behind a solid physical curve.
As for the sun setting without getting smaller, it's appearance is affected by the atmospheric conditions as this short video explains:
4min 7sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6kOMNFz0TpPs/
Conversely, the question can be asked, if the sun is millions of miles away, why does it often appear to be get smaller and smaller in size as it sets?? If it's as large as they say and as far away as they say, a few miles of distance shouldn't make a change in it's appearance.
Here is more on how the sun over Flat Earth:
19min 59sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NYNoDUv8llW6/
Perhaps you can explain why the sun can't be smaller and like a flashlight? Is there a reason that simply isn't possible.
There are times you can see stars or clouds through the moon so it does appear to be translucent. In any case, the moon rocks NASA brought back were tested and found to be petrified wood. lol
Do you have any videos of science experiments showing a body of water without a container or how water sticks to a ball or how buildings and boats and people can be upside down on the ball and not notice it? I wasn't born last night either and those things seem quite preposterous! lol ::shrug::
Miser, here is a picture of the lake I posted about. It was photographed with my phone, so it’s not perfect. But I know it is real because I was the one who did it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6jXCFBi.jpg)
-
Miser, here is a picture of the lake I posted about. It was photographed with my phone, so it’s not perfect. But I know it is real because I was the one who did it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6jXCFBi.jpg)
I was considering buying the Nikon camera to put this thing to rest, but what I think I may do later today is take my telescope to the same point and observe and post my findings.
-
Earth curvature calculator:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
-
BTW, I posted this about a year ago:
“In any event, from what I remember, I saw the top of Pikes Peak coming into view from the summit to the base when I drove from the Kansas boarder west to Colorado Springs in June of 1992. I’ve personally seen the CN Tower in Toronto from Niagara on the Lake with the base obscured. I posted someones video displaying this. There are multiple videos that obviously aren’t fake that show ships disappearing over the horizon. And I’m sorry, but the excuse that waves or humidity just isn’t going to cut it. Am I going to believe the “mountain guy” or my lying 👀?”
-
Just because I don’t believe some fake video of a rocket supposedly stopping in the firmament, I deny that the firmament exists? Really?
Do you believe earth is covered by the firmament and that the sun moon and stars are in the dome of the firmament as scripture and the Fathers of the Church teach?
-
Sorry, but there are many videos that show ships disappearing over the horizon and demonstrating a GE. As a matter of fact the Dimond Brothers, who you agree with on many points, produced a video supporting a GE:
There are videos showing someone's legs disappearing as they walk down the street. That's the problem with the unscientific approach of the Globers. Never have the Globers presented a video where they give the details: how far away is the target object, what kind of camera are they using and what zoom level, what are the wave conditions (higher waves can cause things to disappear), is there refraction (for Globers, refraction exists only when the phenomena seem to support FE but are miraculously a non-factor when a boat's bottom disppears), etc. FEs have many videos where they report all the numbers, take meticulous readings of things like humidity, report the wave heights, etc.
Ships can disappear for any number of reasons -- waves, humidity/refraction, it's passed out of the range of whatever recording device is used to view it, etc. FEs have made videos demonstrating that even after something APPEARS to start vanishing from bottom up, if you increase the zoom level, it comes back into full view. I've seen video taken of sunsets, where the bottom of the sun SEEMS to disappear and then they zoom in and can see the entire thing, and the same video has been taken of boats.
Globers tend to get a picture and say, "ah, proof, take that!" ... but don't bother to analyze the factors involved. What about "refraction"? Oh, that doesn't exist when the picture seems to support Globe, but must be taking place if it shows FE. Confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.
I have NO PROBLEM engaging in a rational debate about the subject, but I have little patience for intellectual dishonesty. That one video I posted goes on for 30 minutes showing clear fraud on the part of the Globers.
-
Just because I don’t believe some fake video of a rocket supposedly stopping in the firmament, I deny that the firmament exists?
What fake rocket video? This video was from the GoFast 2014 team that hold the record for highest and fastest amateur rocket. So they faked it? When they're not Flat Earthers. This is the type of dishonesty that I can't stand. You gratuitously say it's fake without even looking into it. That video is very real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Space_eXploration_Team
-
Lad, the firmament refers to the fact that the stars are fixed relative to each other, in such a way that they all rotate around the earth without changing their position relative to each other.
Nice story, bro. Now tell that to the Church Fathers who unanimously believed otherewise.
-
Miser, here is a picture of the lake I posted about. It was photographed with my phone, so it’s not perfect. But I know it is real because I was the one who did it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6jXCFBi.jpg)
What does this show? I don't understand.
-
BTW, I posted this about a year ago:
“In any event, from what I remember, I saw the top of Pikes Peak coming into view from the summit to the base when I drove from the Kansas boarder west to Colorado Springs in June of 1992. I’ve personally seen the CN Tower in Toronto from Niagara on the Lake with the base obscured. I posted someones video displaying this. There are multiple videos that obviously aren’t fake that show ships disappearing over the horizon. And I’m sorry, but the excuse that waves or humidity just isn’t going to cut it. Am I going to believe the “mountain guy” or my lying 👀?”
Garbage. Waves and humidity and refraction are all factors. There are lots of photos of Toronto across the Lake that show way too much of the buildings. So the debate is which are real and which are the result of some aberration. I had an entire thread devoted to analyzing the arguments pro and con.
Either all the FE ones are caused by refaraction or the ones taken by the Globers are caused by waves, refraction, humidity, atmospheric conditions. Those are your choices. But I'm sick of the "look, here's one picture ... proof" horsecrap.
FEs have conducted laser experiments, and have taken all the measurements, have performed them in cold conditions with very low humidity where refraction is nearly impossible, AND ... the kicker ... have conducted TWO-WAY laser experiments where the lasers were pointing on opposite directions and just a few feet apart. If refraction bends light down in one direction, you'd need a continually increasing density gradient in that direction. But then from the other direction would have a continually decreasing density gradient, and the laser would "refract" up and not be visible. Lasers were seen in both directions. This experiment was conducted by Dr. John D, who holds a PhD in specctrometry, and who livestreamed the experiment from both sides, announced it beforehand, invited observers, took measurements of temperature and humidity at the ground level and then every couple feet above it, not only at the end points, but at point in between.
You believe what you want to believe and you're not being intellectually honest and examining the question with an open mind.
-
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/50-reasons-earth-not-flat/
Right out of the gate, the Narrator (not one of the Dimond Brothers) is mischaracterizing "Zeteticism". He's lying that the Zetetic approach does not seek to test or falsify the conclusions. Zeteticism is in fact the restatement of the scientific method, that you draw hypotheses and conclusions from actual observations and not mathematical fantasy. That's precisely the same criticism that Tesla would later have about modern science. But there are only a small handful of FEs, mostly from the 18th cetury, who even claim to be "Zetetic". Most just look at evidence and don't have any particular scientific philosophy.
Then he spends about 3-4 minutes on personal attacks against FEs, most of which are either irrelevant to the question of FE or distortions. I'll just pick this distortion here, where he claims that DuBay is endorsing Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
(https://i.ibb.co/khdhmm0/dubay.png)
DuBay is NOT endorsing Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Anybody with a gradeschool education and who's not intellectually dishonest realizes that he's ATTACKING Tyson for being a Freemason as a parody response to Tyson's quote just above it. This dishonest and intellectually-challenged narrator claims that here DuBay "endorsed this sect". And this was RIGHT after he cited DuBay as asserting that it was Freemasons who are keeping the FE secret. DuBay has regularly attacked the Masons ... and also Jews. Narrator also criticizes Dubay for dressing like a woman one time (he was doing that to MOCK a woman who was putting out anti-FE videos ... he has a girlfriend). He criticizes one guy because he's also an actor and appeared in some immodest/impure video.
So then, after 4 minutes of worthless and stupid personal attacks, he rattles off a list of things without any proof whatsoever:
1) quotes Ptolemy that earth is a sphere ( so? )
2) attacks Azimuthal Equidistant map, saying that you can make an Azimuthal map from any point on earth. So? I've already gone through and explained where all of the other Azimuthal projections badly distort anything that's past about 1/3 of the earth's surface from the center point, whereas the North Pole AE map does not badly distort the Southern Hemisphere (with Australia being a point of contention)
3) mentions the Sydney to Santiago flight from Quantas and claims that it would not work on a FE map (without proof ... just says it)
4) that there are stations on Antarctica and that THEY "vouch for the fact that" Antarctica is 11,000 in circuмference :laugh1: (it's actually about 9,900)
5) cites one guy's claim to have circuмnavigated Antarctica in 102 days and asserts that this would required travelling 27 knots per hour (vs. the single-hull speed record of 20), so asserts that this was done about 30% faster that it would have been possible on a Flat Earth. Narrator refuses to take into account that this would only be if the guy was directly hugging the ice wall, which is highly unlikely, and the brief video clip he showed had him out in open sea without any sign of Antarctica. Narrator doesn't realize that on a Flat Map, with Antarctica as the outer perimeter, if you're a certain distance away from Antarctica, that massively decreases the length of the circuit. So one would have to look at what he meant by "circuмnavigating". Now, if Antartica were 9,900 (Globe) vs 78,000 in "circuмference" (wrong word for FE), this guy would have only travelled 99 miles per day, which equates to 4 MPH over 24 hours. [Knots and Miles are very close 1 to 1.15]. So this guy really moved at 4 MPH when these boats can move at 20 MPH? Assuming the guy REALLY did it and didn't make it up (it's been proven that the first two or three guys who claimed to make it to the North Pole actually lied about it).
So, I looked up Fyodor Konyukhov's route when allegedly "circuмnavigating" Antarctica (after I wrote the above). Here you go --
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.explorersweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/24005542/hicks-route.jpg)
He didn't circuмnavigate squat. He was skimming just south of the continents, which merely ASSUMES circuмnavigation of Antarctica based on a Globe model assumption. That would have shaved a very significant amount off the 78,000 mile perimeter of Antarctica (I'm not sure I buy his number ... I think it's more like 60K), putting it well within the reach of the 102 days it took him to do it. And then of course, I'm guessing he rode on some very favorable currents that would have significantly increased his speed. I doubt he would have chosen to move against the currents. So this one too is an epic fail with no actual analysis from the narrator. As I said, alternative, if he circuмnavigated 9,900 miles, would be that he was moving 4MPH ... which is ridiculous. He could proably do 100 miles in 4-5 hours tops. So this actually gets flipped into evidence FOR Flat Earth. Of course, on a Globe, being this far North of the Antarctic would have ADDED to his circuмference (vs. SUBTRACTING on the FE map), so it wold have been faster than 4MPH, but still, what, no more than 6-7 MPH, which is still ridiculous. People can run that fast as a matter of course (Usain Bolt hit 27 MPH during his short sprints). Marathon runners sustain about 10-12 MPH for the entire 26 miles. And yet Fyodor couldn't keep pace in a boat with some guy running a marathon? Captain Cook logged over 60,000 miles when he tried to "circuмnavigate" Antarctica. At 20 MPH, the 9,900-mile circuмference could be done in 21 days and would not have required 102. Multiply both these numbers by 5 and you get roughtly 102 days for 50,000 miles, which can be accounted for by the fact that he was actually sailing beneath tips of South America and Australia (and also appears to have cut some corners when cutting through the Pacific) ... and not close to the Antarctic ice wall.
So the Globe model would have had this Fyodor crawling through the water at 4-6 MPH (humans can walk up to 4 MPH). Can you even go that slow if you tried when riding currents? Whereas, travelling at 20 MPH (more like it for a boat, and probably more due to currents), he could have covered about 50,000 miles in 102 days. And, given how far "North" of Antarctica he actually was, that probably just about the right distance for the FE model. You could say, "Well, maybe he made stops." This was a race, so I'm sure he minimized stops. But if he went 20MPH for 4 hours a day (out of 24) and stopped for an average of 20 hours per day, he could have covered the circuмference of Antarctica in the 102 days. So he stopped that much, 20 hours per day out of 24? I'd be all about setting a speed record and would try to knock it out in 22 (instead of wasting 102 lolygagging around).
6) then he mentions an overland crossing of Antarctica ... but as FEs have shown, they simply cut across a corner of Antarctica and did not actually cross it. Nobody's actually crossed it where the came down from Australia, crossed Antarctica, and could then take a boat from there to South America. That kind of crossing has never happened.
7) he points to the fact that tourists can travel to Antarctica on cruise ships. So? They always just take them to the same place just south of the tip of South America. It's not like they let the tourists just go wherever they want.
8) 24-hour sun. That's never been proven, just asserted as fact. The two videos out there purportedly showing it were exposed as obvious fakes (I dealt with that earlier).
9) This next one is even more absurd. He says, "There are 3 poles, geographic, magnetic, and ceremonial. The fact that lines of longitude converge on a geographic pole proves that the earth is a globe" (as he shows a globe earth map). Says who? That's the whole point of contention. Narrator of this article is clearly not a highly intelligent individual.
10) It gets better. You see, cities in the Southern Hemisphere have longer days in the Summer which would be "impossible on a Flat Earth". :facepalm: [Only if you beg the question, buddy, which you're clearly doing here in every other point you've made.]
11) Things (sun, sun-dials, stars) move counter-clockwise in north and counter-clockwise in South. Clearly this man has not studied the FE model or this subject in general AT ALL, where this makes sense if the sun and moon travel between the tropics (which they actually do).
12) A solar eclipse only covers part of the earth and not the entire earth in darkness because "the sun is much bigger than the moon". He's got to be joking on this one, right? Even the Globers don't argue this. It all has to do with the proportions and the angles between the different objects. :facepalm: While the sun is (alleged to be) much bigger than the sun, it's also allegedly so far way that by the time we see it here, it's the same size as the moon. In both cases the reason the entire earth isn't darkened has more to do with the distance of the earth from the object casting the shadow, and the size of the object casting the shadow, distances between the two objects, etc. ... where you could work out the math in either case.
That's all I have time for (about 8 minutes in), but the Dimonds need to remove this video if they have any self-respect and don't want to come across at total morons. I'll assume that these first 12 or so are his BEST proofs, so I probably won't waste my time on the rest of it.
-
Before this topic started being discussed in the past year or two, I never had any idea people believed such bizarre things as that space is covered by some sort of ceiling, and that the stars are basically light bulbs in this ceiling. If I had heard that some tribe in the jungles of Africa believed in such a primitive and ludicrous idea, I would have had a hard time believing it. But to see an intelligent and highly-educated American profess such beliefs really makes me question a lot of what I thought about the human race. I can also hardly believe the childlike simplicity with which Ladislaus believes seemingly anything he sees on YouTube, such as these videos he just posted.
Lad, the firmament refers to the fact that the stars are fixed relative to each other, in such a way that they all rotate around the earth without changing their position relative to each other. That is what is firm -- their relative position, which makes them appear as if they were embedded in a solid object. That's what is observable, but to say that therefore they are in some sort of glass ceiling is just absurd.
If you really take these videos of the rockets hitting the "firmament" that seriously, then how high up do you think this ceiling is? One or two of those rockets supposedly hit it without about a minute or so of launch. Wouldn't that put this ceiling about a couple thousand feet up? Is that what you think? What about air travel?
Do you really believe planes fly upside down in Australia and bodies of water with no container stick to the outside of a ball?
25 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/11-25.htm)At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones.
-
Garbage. Waves and humidity and refraction are all factors. There are lots of photos of Toronto across the Lake that show way too much of the buildings. So the debate is which are real and which are the result of some aberration. I had an entire thread devoted to analyzing the arguments pro and con.
Either all the FE ones are caused by refaraction or the ones taken by the Globers are caused by waves, refraction, humidity, atmospheric conditions. Those are your choices. But I'm sick of the "look, here's one picture ... proof" horsecrap.
FEs have conducted laser experiments, and have taken all the measurements, have performed them in cold conditions with very low humidity where refraction is nearly impossible, AND ... the kicker ... have conducted TWO-WAY laser experiments where the lasers were pointing on opposite directions and just a few feet apart. If refraction bends light down in one direction, you'd need a continually increasing density gradient in that direction. But then from the other direction would have a continually decreasing density gradient, and the laser would "refract" up and not be visible. Lasers were seen in both directions. This experiment was conducted by Dr. John D, who holds a PhD in specctrometry, and who livestreamed the experiment from both sides, announced it beforehand, invited observers, took measurements of temperature and humidity at the ground level and then every couple feet above it, not only at the end points, but at point in between.
You believe what you want to believe and you're not being intellectually honest and examining the question with an open mind.
Do you really believe that a 5 foot wave can hide a 60 foot tree?
Do you really believe that any proFE video on YouTube should be taken as fact until it is proven false?
-
So I looked up and ran the numbers here to show that the Dimond Video Mr. Narrator is lying (well, let's just say, mistaken ... but culpably mistaken because he just made up numbers without bothering to check any of it. Culpable Errors could be classified as lying, objectively speaking).
He claimed that it would require 78,000 miles on FE map to circuмnavigate Antarctica. As I imagine, that's based on a radius to the putative South Pole and fails to take into account that you wouldn't be sailing through the land of the continent.
So the distance between the North Pole and the coast/edge of Antarctica is reportedly 11,546 miles. So, plugging it into the old c=2(pi)r formula, you're already down to 72,545 miles ... which shaves nearly 5,500 miles of the circuit that this guy claimed.
Ah but wait. Fyodor was "circuмnavigating" right along the southernmost edge of South America, which is roughly 8,355 miles from the North Pole. Once again using c=2(pi)r, you get a circuмference of 52,496. I looked up his route, which Mr. Narrator didn't bother to do before making his false claims. This is actually typical, where the Globers sprew out anything that they think poves their case without actually doing any investigation. Mr. Narrator saw "78,000 miles on Flat Earth" (only at the South Pole, and you wouldn't circuмnavigate right at the pole, cutting through the landmass). At that point, the circuмference on Globe would not be 11,000 miles, but 0 miles. And then Mr. Narrator saw "Fyodor curcuмnavitates Antarctica in 102.5 days", does a bit of math, and comes up with his assertion.
So, now, Mr. Dimond Narrator guy's 78,000 has suddenly become 52,496. Shame he didn't bother to do the slightest bit of fact checking on his analysis.
Fyodor could have covered the distance of 52,496 in 102.5 days by travelling 21.3 MPH. So this Dimond Narrator guy's entire argument crumbles. He claimed that the top speed of these boats is about 20 MPH and that it would have required 27 MPH to travel the 78,000 miles in 102.5 days.
Except that it wasn't 78,000 miles (on an FE scale), but 52,496, which results in 102.5 days at 21.3 MPH.
Now, he also claimed that that the fastest monohull record was about 20 MPH. I found that to be untrue as well. Lie much? Now, Monohulls can reach upwards of 35-40 MPH, but this is with regard to sustained long-distance records. So, the record for a long-distance monohull is 5.5 days to cross the Atlantic, which led to an average speed of 25.75 knots. Now, granted this record was set a few years after Fyodor, but (looking it up), the record in Fyodor's day was 24.85 ... not the 20 that mendacious narrator claims it was. So he exaggerates both the distance (to 78,000 miles) and the speed record (20 MPH vs. 24.85). That monohull record set later (which surpassed the previous record by 1MPH average) had them cross the Atlantic in roughly 5.5 days.
At 24 MPH, Fyodor could have covered over 59,000 miles in 102.5 days. But based on his actual route, he only would have travelled about 52,496 miles. That gives plenty of room for some slower speeds and some rest.
But, if as Mr. Narrator claimed, he was only covering 11,000 miles (false), he could have done that in 20 days.
So that is just based on Mr. Narrator's claim of 11,000 miles. Let's see how far Mr. Fyodor would have travelled on a Globe at 50 degree south line of latitude. Yes, that's right. Fyodor was just at 50 degrees south and nowhere near Antarctica. Based on the math, it's 24,900 (circuмference at equator) times the cosign of 50, which is .64. So Mr. Fyodor would have travelled 16,000 miles on a Globe.
That translates to about 6.5 MPH for 102 days (pretty close to what I had guessed), so basically, about this fast ...
(https://media.tenor.com/SUqdflG1XvcAAAAM/brisk-walking.gif)
Actually, some of these guy have hit records of 5-minute miles, so actually faster than Fyodor "circuмnavigated" Antartica. :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
So, Captain Cook logged 60,000 miles when he "circuмnavigated" Antarctica.
As I demonstrated above, the circuмnavigation distance would vary between 52,000 (if hugging the southern tips of the South Hemisphere continents) to 72,000 miles if hugging the Antarctic coastline. So Captain Cook's 60,000 pretty much cuts the difference in half.
Cook took 3 years on average for each voyage, and even when he was going "around" Antarctica, he wasn't super close for most of the journey, and was actually closer to the 50 degree point. On a globe, that would be somewhere between 11,000 - 16,000 miles in circuмference. Even if you added in a generous amount for his meandering, this doesn't come close to explaining the additional 44,000 miles he logged on top of the 16,000 or so you would have had on a Globe.
On a globe, the 50 degree latitutde south would required 16,000 for circuмnavigation, whereas the coast of Antarctica closer to 10,000 - 11,000. One should be able to cover those distances somewhere between 20-30 days, not 102. So the 102 days it took Fyodor to make the journey is more consistent with FE than GE.
That guy above was going far too fast. Fyodor would have been going closer to this speed --
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SlimExaltedFreshwatereel-max-1mb.gif)
-
Flat Earth +1
When they attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ a man -- and fail -- it makes one look into just how good that man is, that they tried to kill him!
It backfires.
Likewise these attempts at intellectual assassination of a theory/concept like Flat Earth. They tried, they tried hard, and they failed. Makes me respect Flat Earth more than if they hadn't bothered in the first place!
-
Flat Earth +1
When they attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ a man -- and fail -- it makes one look into just how good that man is, that they tried to kill him!
It backfires.
Likewise these attempts at intellectual assassination of a theory/concept like Flat Earth. They tried, they tried hard, and they failed. Makes me respect Flat Earth more than if they hadn't bothered in the first place!
Consistently, the problem with Globe Earth arguments is that they beg the question and make assumptions, then apply confirmation bias to the evidence. RARELY do I see any of them do the math or study the question. Here the guy just found this number of 78,000 (which is wrong for a circuмnavigation), then failed to look up Fyodor's route, which had him going along the 50-the degree south latitutde, and that would on an FE map cut the distance down to 52,000 (from his assumed 78,000). So Fyodor did 52,000 in 102 days, which is more than doable at only about 80% of the record long-distance / sustained speeds for monohull boats (a number this guy also got wrong ... didn't actually look it up?). Fastest sprint speeds for these boats approach 40 MPH. Conversely, on a globe, the distance would have been 16,000 miles, which would have reduced Fydor to travelling at the speed of a senior citizen out for a morning speedwalk.
At the end of the day, God made the earth what it is. Whether He made it flat or a globe doesn't really impact my salvation or my faith, etc. If someone had solid evidence of a globe or a solid argument, I am all ears. Just as I was initially a Glober but then started to look with an open mind, I will accept any evidence presented with a open mind. But there's just SO much dishonesty, sloppiness, confirmation bias, etc. from the Globe side that it gets me really frustrated. I would not be angry if I were refuted and had to change my mind and agree that we live on a Globe. I am not clinging to FE for that reason. But please present some GOOD arguments, and I'm open to it. That one guy above made a 20-minute video exposing a bunch of fraud from the Globers (that was obvious fraud with clear evidence of it ... where they were caught red-handed). There's so much obvious clear-cut fraud from NASA. They're clearly lying about or hiding SOMEthing. They don't have battleships and fighter planes down in Antarctica to protect a few penguins.
-
What fake rocket video? This video was from the GoFast 2014 team that hold the record for highest and fastest amateur rocket. So they faked it? When they're not Flat Earthers. This is the type of dishonesty that I can't stand. You gratuitously say it's fake without even looking into it. That video is very real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Space_eXploration_Team
Yep Lad I was wrong, it wasn’t the video that was faked, it was it’s interpretation of what happened that was faked and the video was purposely shortened to help “prove” it. :facepalm: I really feel sorry for all those who fall for this nonsense.
I also love how many of these videos start off by explaining how it is being censored. :laugh2:
I’m seriously not trying to be mean, but you are way too gullible. Here’s the kicker the full video from the first link proves a global Earth!
Do your research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc
https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/1322-flat-earth-not-rocket-hitting-the-dome-the-2014-civilian-space-exploration-rocket-another-flat-earth-fallacy-smashed-into-pieces
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Go-Fast-Rocket-stop-instantaneously-from-3500-mph-not-disintegrate-What-stopped-it
-
Yep Lad I was wrong, it wasn’t the video that was faked, it was it’s interpretation of what happened that was faked and the video was purposely shortened to help “prove” it. :facepalm: I really feel sorry for all those who fall for this nonsense.
I also love how many of these videos start off by explaining how it is being censored. :laugh2:
I’m seriously not trying to be mean, but you are way too gullible. Here’s the kicker the full video from the first link proves a global Earth!
Do your research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc
https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/1322-flat-earth-not-rocket-hitting-the-dome-the-2014-civilian-space-exploration-rocket-another-flat-earth-fallacy-smashed-into-pieces
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Go-Fast-Rocket-stop-instantaneously-from-3500-mph-not-disintegrate-What-stopped-it
Well, if anything, this video proves a flat earth. The go pro lens is sure proof, otherwise the bending back and forth of the edge would not happen. Naturally, earth doesn't bend both convex and concave at the same time as the video suggests. So in between the bends is the true form of the earth and it is flat like the views from cameras 120,000" up. Hmm. I wonder what suddenly stopped the rocket from continuing to ascend?
-
Well, if anything, this video proves a flat earth. The go pro lens is sure proof, otherwise the bending back and forth of the edge would not happen. Naturally, earth doesn't bend both convex and concave at the same time as the video suggests. So in between the bends is the true form of the earth and it is flat like the views from cameras 120,000" up. Hmm. I wonder what suddenly stopped the rocket from continuing to ascend?
I you read the third link I posted, the guy who sent up the rocket gives you the answer.
-
I you read the third link I posted, the guy who sent up the rocket gives you the answer.
I was kidding. But then, there's no proof in that video either way. In the meantime, the truth about the earth doesn't need ifs or maybes, even if the video was true. We already have the truth, in every sector, and irrefutable support for a simple, subtle, obvious proofs that do no harm, work in tandem with Christianity as well as with the saints, and simultaneously untangles a millennia-old false narrative that annoyingly continues to enable the pagan world to enrich themselves, to control people who love God and to deny metaphysical reality, all by popular demand. It's time we take back what is ours and defend things the way God made them. Heaven is above, hell is below, earth is not a moving globe, God is the author of creation. Catholics should bid good riddance to all nuances of pagan persuasions, most urgently the political/economic aspect wreaking havoc and spreading apostasy, which is globalism. Interestingly, globalism espouses and promotes globe earth, something that should make people go hmmm...
-
I was kidding. But then, there's no proof in that video either way. In the meantime, the truth about the earth doesn't need ifs or maybes, even if the video was true. We already have the truth, in every sector, and irrefutable support for a simple, subtle, obvious proofs that do no harm, work in tandem with Christianity as well as with the saints, and simultaneously untangles a millennia-old false narrative that annoyingly continues to enable the pagan world to enrich themselves, to control people who love God and to deny metaphysical reality, all by popular demand. It's time we take back what is ours and defend things the way God made them. Heaven is above, hell is below, earth is not a moving globe, God is the author of creation. Catholics should bid good riddance to all nuances of pagan persuasions, most urgently the political/economic aspect wreaking havoc and spreading apostasy, which is globalism. Interestingly, globalism espouses and promotes globe earth, something that should make people go hmmm...
I just returned from taking 2 telescopes (refractor and reflector) and my Nikon binoculars to the lake near me that is 20.1 miles long. I also bought 5 of my children to confirm my findings. Take a guess what we saw? Nothing, there were no trees or buildings as they were all below the curvature of the Earth.
-
I just returned from taking 2 telescopes (refractor and reflector) and my Nikon binoculars to the lake near me that is 20.1 miles long. I also bought 5 of my children to confirm my findings. Take a guess what we saw? Nothing, there were no trees or buildings as they were all below the curvature of the Earth.
That's one assessment, but a truth seeker will do due diligence to make sure they haven't missed something.
-
I just returned from taking 2 telescopes (refractor and reflector) and my Nikon binoculars to the lake near me that is 20.1 miles long. I also bought 5 of my children to confirm my findings. Take a guess what we saw? Nothing, there were no trees or buildings as they were all below the curvature of the Earth.
What demonstrates the global Earth even more is that the picture that I posted shows the tops of the trees on the side of the lake just the way they should be seen at around 13 to 15 miles out. I was about 15 feet eye level above the water line and I used Google Earth and this calculator to figure out the measurements: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
-
What demonstrates the global Earth even more is that the picture that I posted shows the tops of the trees on the side of the lake just the way they should be seen at around 13 to 15 miles out. I was about 15 feet eye level above the water line and I used Google Earth and this calculator to figure out the measurements: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Continuing to study this first hand is the best thing you can do. Keep going.
-
Yep Lad I was wrong, it wasn’t the video that was faked, it was it’s interpretation of what happened that was faked and the video was purposely shortened to help “prove” it. :facepalm: I really feel sorry for all those who fall for this nonsense.
I also love how many of these videos start off by explaining how it is being censored. :laugh2:
I’m seriously not trying to be mean, but you are way too gullible. Here’s the kicker the full video from the first link proves a global Earth!
Do your research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc
https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/1322-flat-earth-not-rocket-hitting-the-dome-the-2014-civilian-space-exploration-rocket-another-flat-earth-fallacy-smashed-into-pieces
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Go-Fast-Rocket-stop-instantaneously-from-3500-mph-not-disintegrate-What-stopped-it
Actually, this video really destroys FE in one fell swoop.
-
Continuing to study this first hand is the best thing you can do. Keep going.
I appreciate the honesty, thank you!
-
Miser, here is a picture of the lake I posted about. It was photographed with my phone, so it’s not perfect. But I know it is real because I was the one who did it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6jXCFBi.jpg)
Here is the picture I posted.
-
Here is the picture I posted.
What are you talking about? You didn't zoom in on the trees at all. This picture shows absolutely nothing of any scientific value. Take a Nikon P900 or P1000, zoom in on the trees as close as you can get, and then get back to us.
From this distance, without zooming, ABSOLUTELY a 5-foot wave could obscure 15 feet of trees. It's simple perspective, man. If the waves are closer to you, they are BIGGER in your line of site than the trees many miles away. Something 5 feet tall that's within 100 yards of you is going to be bigger than something that's 100 feet tall and several miles away. You need to actually zoom in on the target.
For this to be of any scientific value, you need to docuмent 1) where you are, 2) how far away the trees are, 3) what the conditions are (wave heights, atmospheric conditions), 4) what camera you're using and at what zoom level. That's just to get the data. But you need to zoom in on those trees. Due to perspective, things start to converge with the horizon. I've seen dozens of views just like that that when you zoom in on them, the bottom starts to reappear and it was just an optical thing due to perspective, the limits of our vision (in the case of your camera's low zoom level), etc.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bkehZIb.jpg)
Here's a photo of a lake located north of where I live. I didn't take it. Notice that there's no curve. It's as straight as can be.
-
What are you talking about? You didn't zoom in on the trees at all. This picture shows absolutely nothing of any scientific value. Take a Nikon P900 or P1000, zoom in on the trees as close as you can get, and then get back to us.
From this distance, without zooming, ABSOLUTELY a 5-foot wave could obscure 15 feet of trees. It's simple perspective, man. If the waves are closer to you, they are BIGGER in your line of site than the trees many miles away. Something 5 feet tall that's within 100 yards of you is going to be bigger than something that's 100 feet tall and several miles away. You need to actually zoom in on the target.
For this to be of any scientific value, you need to docuмent 1) where you are, 2) how far away the trees are, 3) what the conditions are (wave heights, atmospheric conditions), 4) what camera you're using and at what zoom level. That's just to get the data. But you need to zoom in on those trees. Due to perspective, things start to converge with the horizon. I've seen dozens of views just like that that when you zoom in on them, the bottom starts to reappear and it was just an optical thing due to perspective, the limits of our vision (in the case of your camera's low zoom level), etc.
Did you happen to read my post above about the telescopes and binoculars? I also used a curvature calculator in conjunction with Google maps to do the calculations.
What I’m really anxious to read is your rebuttal of the full length “very real” video that supposedly shows the firmament. Will you admit that it blows your FE theory out of the water? Keep in mind that the end of the video (not a NASA video) shows a globe Earth.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bkehZIb.jpg)
Here's a photo of a lake located north of where I live. I didn't take it. Notice that there's no curve. It's as straight as can be.
:facepalm:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bkehZIb.jpg)
Here's a photo of a lake located north of where I live. I didn't take it. Notice that there's no curve. It's as straight as can be.
Not sure why the globers keep trying to suggest water surface can curve. Water surface is absolutely incapable of curving. It's kind of like God wanted to give us a clue. Great photo.
-
Did you happen to read my post above about the telescopes and binoculars? I also used a curvature calculator in conjunction with Google maps to do the calculations.
What I’m really anxious to read is your rebuttal of the full length “very real” video that supposedly shows the firmament. Will you admit that it blows your FE theory out of the water? Keep in mind that the end of the video (not a NASA video) shows a globe Earth.
Which one? Secondly, I'll rebut your video if you rebut my points. But you don't rebut ... you simply ignore, and then just keep repeating your gratuitous assertions. As for your "telescope", your analysis of what you saw is likely full of holes and rests only on confirmation bias. I already spilled tons of virtual ink on this subject, and it's obvious that you are not willing to look at this issue objectively, and it's a waste of my time. If you repost this brilliant magical link, if I have time and nothing better to do, I'll have a look. This will be only the 30th or 40th time that someone posted something that was "smoking gun" proof that turned out, on actual rational analysis, to be total garbage.
With regard to pictures, and the battle of pictures and of sightings, you have some where things appear cut off, and other things to are not cut off when they should be. I had an entire thread devoted to it, analyzing the pros and cons of both sides.
Either "refraction" is causing the "see too far" pictures or else various weather and atmospheric conditions are causing things to be cut off. I saw a geat video by a guy who went to the same place over and over again and sometimes the image was cut off, and sometimes it wasn't. Either there was refraction taking place when he could see the whole thing or there was something going on when he couldn't.
But that's where the so-called "Black Swan" pictures and the Two-Way Laser experiment utterly destroy the "refraction" argument ... and the case really is closed, until you can come up with a PLAUSIBLE explanation (not the refraction crap) for why light bends around the curvature of the planet, so perfectly, so consistently, wtihout distortion, with perfect regularity, erases the earth bulge betwee us and objects that are too far away to be seen, in one case of a record photograph from nearly 300 miles away showing light-house about 150 feet above the water that should have been obscured by miles of curvature at those distances (a photo taken by a professional photographer without any interest in or clue about the whole FE debate) ... if you were to take the time to study the question with an OPEN MIND (which you clearly don't have), then you would see that the case for refraction is about as plausibe as the case for random mutations leading to the complexity of human life. Refraction simply cannot explain all this. In the meantime, you can find videos of people's LEGS disappearing as they walk 50-100 feet down the street away from the camera due to atmospheric conditions (heat and humidity). That kind of thing can happen and does happen all the time ... a little humidity, a little haze, or (over water) some choppy waves. So, which is more plausible?, that the pictures showing things being cut off are due to phenomna like this, where the person's legs disappear from bottom up, or that this magical refraction does all the things listed above? It's really not even close.
-
Do your research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc
Are you talking about this ridiculous stupidity? That Tradman refuted in one sentence? From the first camera you could see NO curvature, and BTW, NO drop in the Horizon Line (proof of FE). In the second video, you could clearly see the line oscillate between concave, straight, and convex ... sure proof of a GoPro / wide angle lense. Last time I checked, nobody on either side believes in a concave earth.
You have the temerity to tell me to do my research, when I've done hundreds of hours of reserach and it's clear that you don't even know the basics ... like the existence of wide-angle and convex lenses.
You want some more video. How about the Red Bull jump? That one show curved earth too, but even Neil de Grassed Tyson had to admit this was a distortion due to wide angle lense that it was "flat". But, during that Red Bull jump, a camera was there inside the capsule and showed the horizon line from when it was on the ground still. And that same camera, when the door was flung open at 120,000 feet showed the horizon line at the EXACT SAME LEVEL as when the capsule was on the ground. It should have been significantly lower.
So, bud, YOU do your research. Displaying your ignorance in presenting this as proof shows you haven't done a lick of actual research into the subject.
-
In fact, if you had bothered to read your own link, you would have seen --
They repeated this again in 2014. Achieved an altitude of 73 miles above the earth while simultaneously filming the view with a variety of GoPro cameras.
You do know what those are, right? They're cameras with wide-angle lenses, where straight lines end up bending up or down (or straight) depending on the angle.
-
Are you talking about this ridiculous stupidity? That Tradman refuted in one sentence? From the first camera you could see NO curvature, and BTW, NO drop in the Horizon Line (proof of FE). In the second video, you could clearly see the line oscillate between concave, straight, and convex ... sure proof of a GoPro / wide angle lense. Last time I checked, nobody on either side believes in a concave earth.
You have the temerity to tell me to do my research, when I've done hundreds of hours of reserach and it's clear that you don't even know the basics ... like the existence of wide-angle and convex lenses.
You want some more video. How about the Red Bull jump? That one show curved earth too, but even Neil de Grassed Tyson had to admit this was a distortion due to wide angle lense that it was "flat". But, during that Red Bull jump, a camera was there inside the capsule and showed the horizon line from when it was on the ground still. And that same camera, when the door was flung open at 120,000 feet showed the horizon line at the EXACT SAME LEVEL as when the capsule was on the ground. It should have been significantly lower.
So, bud, YOU do your research. Displaying your ignorance in presenting this as proof shows you haven't done a lick of actual research into the subject.
Do you understand that the “very real” video that YOU HIGHLY touted was edited and does not prove what you claimed it proved? Do you realize that you were fooled? Do you really think by pointing out that the camaras are GoPro cameras helps your case? You do realize that the “very real” video DOES show the edge of the Earth? Remember that everything is not a conspiracy and that YouTube is loaded with videos by people who have an agenda.
You know pride is a terrible thing. In your mind you know more about science than 99.9% of the scientists both ancient and modern. You know more about EENS than Saint Alphonsus and EVERY theologian post Trent. As I’ve said a number of times, you are very intelligent, but that may be your Achilles Heel. Let me suggest that you take a step back and do some introspection and come to the realization that you are not perfect and when you are wrong try to swallow your pride and do the right thing. I say these things not to hurt you, but to help you. Remember the words of Saint Paul: “Have I then become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
-
Do you understand that the “very real” video that YOU HIGHLY touted was edited and does not prove what you claimed it proved? Do you realize that you were fooled? Do you really think by pointing out that the camaras are GoPro cameras helps your case? You do realize that the “very real” video DOES show the edge of the Earth? Remember that everything is not a conspiracy and that YouTube is loaded with videos by people who have an agenda.
You know pride is a terrible thing. In your mind you know more about science than 99.9% of the scientists both ancient and modern. You know more about EENS than Saint Alphonsus and EVERY theologian post Trent. As I’ve said a number of times, you are very intelligent, but that may be your Achilles Heel. Let me suggest that you take a step back and do some introspection and come to the realization that you are not perfect and when you are wrong try to swallow your pride and do the right thing. I say these things not to hurt you, but to help you. Remember the words of Saint Paul: “Have I then become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
BoD and FE are not comparable. The Fathers were (almost) all in favour of both FE and BoD.
So maybe you should do some introspection on the firmament.
Instead of wasting time arguing you should just watch Dr. John D.'s black swan video which explains refraction and be done with the whole thing. It's really simple. If you can't explain the phenomenon portrayed you have to admit its flat, if you can, great, post the explanation here and we'll dive deep.
Just research the one phenomenon to the end and all will be clear.
-
BoD and FE are not comparable. The Fathers were (almost) all in favour of both FE and BoD.
So maybe you should do some introspection on the firmament.
Instead of wasting time arguing you should just watch Dr. John D.'s black swan video which explains refraction and be done with the whole thing. It's really simple. If you can't explain the phenomenon portrayed you have to admit its flat, if you can, great, post the explanation here and we'll dive deep.
Just research the one phenomenon to the end and all will be clear.
Of course I grant that there was refraction, but refraction does not *always* explain 70 foot trees disappearing from 20 miles away. Refraction changes with atmospheric conditions, so if I were to go to the same spot several times over the course of a year and get the same result, will you concede?
-
Do you understand that the “very real” video that YOU HIGHLY touted was edited and does not prove what you claimed it proved? Do you realize that you were fooled?
In doing your research you should accept the results as shown. That video did your conclusion no good at all but clearly proved that a go pro was used, which always distorts in order to capture the widest angle of view at the center and distorts it when moved. The widest angle at the center is proven flat when the angle shifts above or below that line and the curved distortion contributes to the conclusion because any view above the widest angle is cupped like a bowl and any below it is cupped like an upside down bowl. When the view is centered, the least distortion occurs and the horizon is level. Don't let your ego act like a go pro and distort your ability to discern. We all only want to get to the truth.
-
Of course I grant that there was refraction, but refraction does not *always* explain 70 foot trees disappearing from 20 miles away. Refraction changes with atmospheric conditions, so if I were to go to the same spot several times over the course of a year and get the same result, will you concede?
Refraction accounts for a lot, but there's also angle of resolution. When the angle of resolution (farthest angle for what you're viewing) becomes too small to differentiate the objects you're viewing, it becomes impossible to see what's there and objects finally disappear. The greater the distance, the more things seen within the range of view begin to gather together like a grey blob and disappear. As you move miles away from what you're viewing, things collect up and block the view (buildings or waves for instance) as the angle grows smaller. Eventually, even if there's nothing in the way to block the view, the angle becomes too small to see anything at the focal point. Whatever is being viewed doesn't go behind a curve as it moves away from the eye or camera, it simply becomes indistinguishable. What's interesting is that these causes are proven to exist, but both depend on a flat earth. If earth were a globe, a camera could not distinguish things at distances better than the eye, because the earth itself (e.g. soil or water) would block the view and the object could never be seen again from that distance because the curve blocked the view. Because we can bring items into view with a camera or telescope after they disappear, automatically proves flat earth. If earth were a globe, we could never do that.
-
You know pride is a terrible thing. In your mind you know more about science than 99.9% of the scientists both ancient and modern.
You do realize that heliocentrism is believed by 99% of scientists right?
Is it prideful to believe you know better than them?
-
As I said earlier, you can find pictures/videos with stuff cut off at the bottom, and pictures/videos where stuff is visible that shouldn't be based on curvature math. Globers "argue" that "refraction" explains the FE pictures (they don't really prove it, just say the word "refraction" like a magic want to make FE problems go away), while FE argue that refraction can't explain those myriad pictures, videos, etc.
There's no convincing of a die-hard brainwashed Glober. They'll apply confirmation bias to whatever evidence they think might support their case.
So the "see too far" argument comes down to refraction. I've listed the reasons why "refraction' can't explain it.
1) refraction is inconsistent, volatile, unpredictable, generally results in distortion (most often inversion) ... FE test results are simply too consistent, too clear.
2) refraction can't be so perfectly consistent as to follow the curvature of the globe perfectly for 10s of miles, and in the case of the record long-distance photographs, up to 300 miles. FE videos show a perfect line of perspective between wind turbines that are a mile or two apart stretching for many miles (5 or 6 of them total). Refraction factor would have to be perfectly consistent for miles, would have to erase the earth/water bulge in between, and then refract a false horizon behind the objects behind it. In other words, it magically stops being consistent the minute you get beyond those images. It's conveniently there when you need it but then disappears when you don't want it there, right?
3) refraction (based on its causes) can't work bi-directionally along the same path. 2-way laser experiments (live-streamed) completely destroy refraction. Many FE experiments were done in the cold and with low humidity precisely to minimize the possibility of any refraction. Temperature and humidity readings were taken and the maximum possible refraction calculated.
-
His 99.9% of "past" scientists is a lie. Church Fathers themselves stated that there were numerous competing theories about the shape of the earth. It's a Glober lie that "EVERYONE" has believed the earth to be a sphere since the Ancient Greeks.
As for 99.9% of modern scientists, absolutely I know better ... because they are poisoned by an atheistic agenda and don't have Sacred Scripture as a reference point.
-
BoD and FE are not comparable. The Fathers were (almost) all in favour of both FE and BoD.
BoD and FE are also not comparable because the former is a doctrinal matter, the latter mostly a scientific matter, as I don't believe that there's a DOGMATIC consensus among the Church Fathers about the SHAPE of the earth per se. I do disagree with Dr. Sungenis' analysis and believe that the vast majority of them believed that the earth we walk on is flat, and when they're referring to the world as spherical in shape, they're taking into account the shape of the firmament (which some held was spherical, others semi-spherical, and a few that it was shaped more like a tent ... and that the world was basically shaped like a cone). There are some things, however, that very much appear to be based on their reading of Sacred Scripture: that the earth is in fact the CENTER of the universe (with some allowance made for it possibly being at the BOTTOM center vs. absolute center), that there's a SOLID firmament covering the earth and separating literal WATERS above it from inundating the earth, that there was a GLOBAL flood, part of which was caused by openings in said firmament that allowed some of the "waters above" to inundate the earth. Since these are based squarely on their reading of Sacred Scripture and they were unanimous in this reading, per Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII, their interpretation is definitive and must be held by Catholics.
But the vast majority of Church Fathers REJECTED BoD. 5-6 of them rejected it explicitly, 1 (St. Augustine) floated it tentatively but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence, and arguably a second (St. Ambrose), but the latter stated elsewhere that there's no hope of salvation for even the most devout catechumen who dies without the Sacrament, and his comments about Valentinian distinguish that he could be washed but not crowned. So the Patristic evidence is very much against BoD, as both the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens admits, and even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admits.
As for the later theologians, yes, I believe that they were mistaken. And I am perfectly entitled to my opinion until the Church steps in and rules on it.
from Msgr. Fenton (rejecting "Cekadism"):
When a private theologians ventures to analyze these statements and claims to find a Catholic principle on which the Holy Father’s utterance is based and some contingent mode according to which the Sovereign Pontiff has applied this Catholic principle in his own pronouncement, the only effective doctrinal authority is that of the private theologian himself. According to this method of procedure, the Catholic people would be expected to accept as much of the encyclical as the theologian pronounced to be genuine Catholic teaching. This Catholic teaching would be recognizable as such, not by reason of the Holy Father’s statement in the encyclical, but by reason of its inclusion in other monuments of Christian doctrine.
...
There is, of course, a definite task incuмbent upon the private theologians in the Church’s process of bringing the teachings of the papal encyclicals to the people. The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these docuмents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
Here Msgr. Fenton rejects "Cekadism", which has, unfortunately, caught on in sedevacantist circles, to the point of almost attributing an infallibility to the prevalent theological opinion. For nearly 700 years, all theologians were unanimous in the teaching of St. Augustine that infants who die without Baptism suffer (at least a little bit) in Hell.
-
So, yes, 99.99999% of modern scientists don't believe in a solid firmament, but Sacred Scripture clearly describes a physical firmament that keeps waters above from inundating the earth, and the Church Fathers unanimously understood it that way. Conclusion: those scientists are all wrong. Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church Fathers wins hands down. It is not I who "know better" than 99.9% of scientists, but, rather, the Church Fathers and Sacred Scripture.
-
BoD and FE are also not comparable because the former is a doctrinal matter, the latter mostly a scientific matter, as I don't believe that there's a DOGMATIC consensus among the Church Fathers about the SHAPE of the earth per se. I do disagree with Dr. Sungenis' analysis and believe that the vast majority of them believed that the earth we walk on is flat, and when they're referring to the world as spherical in shape, they're taking into account the shape of the firmament (which some held was spherical, others semi-spherical, and a few that it was shaped more like a tent ... and that the world was basically shaped like a cone). There are some things, however, that very much appear to be based on their reading of Sacred Scripture: that the earth is in fact the CENTER of the universe (with some allowance made for it possibly being at the BOTTOM center vs. absolute center), that there's a SOLID firmament covering the earth and separating literal WATERS above it from inundating the earth, that there was a GLOBAL flood, part of which was caused by openings in said firmament that allowed some of the "waters above" to inundate the earth. Since these are based squarely on their reading of Sacred Scripture and they were unanimous in this reading, per Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII, their interpretation is definitive and must be held by Catholics.
But the vast majority of Church Fathers REJECTED BoD. 5-6 of them rejected it explicitly, 1 (St. Augustine) floated it tentatively but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence, and arguably a second (St. Ambrose), but the latter stated elsewhere that there's no hope of salvation for even the most devout catechumen who dies without the Sacrament, and his comments about Valentinian distinguish that he could be washed but not crowned. So the Patristic evidence is very much against BoD, as both the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens admits, and even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admits.
As for the later theologians, yes, I believe that they were mistaken. And I am perfectly entitled to my opinion until the Church steps in and rules on it.
from Msgr. Fenton (rejecting "Cekadism"):
Here Msgr. Fenton rejects "Cekadism", which has, unfortunately, caught on in sedevacantist circles, to the point of almost attributing an infallibility to the prevalent theological opinion. For nearly 700 years, all theologians were unanimous in the teaching of St. Augustine that infants who die without Baptism suffer (at least a little bit) in Hell.
The comparison that I made was to demonstrate how you believe that you are never, or almost never, wrong. You say things with such conviction that I would be taken in if it weren’t for the fact that I see through your errors and your display of pride. Also, you contradict people like Saint Alphonsus and dismiss him as if were just an assistant pastor in some obscure diocese.
To your credit, I will say you are very kind and extremely generous, almost to a fault, in helping people with problems.
-
So much for Robert Sungenis' tome and subsequent videos denying earth is flat. He could save face by writing a book to explain how his conclusions were a mistake and that he didn't know some things at the time, but has realized earth is not a globe and do it before the egg on his face gets too crusty. No one here is against Sungenis per se and we would love to support him in truth but the OP video is a sign that he needs a lot of work. Maybe charity will help him to see.
-
But the vast majority of Church Fathers REJECTED BoD. 5-6 of them rejected it explicitly, 1 (St. Augustine) floated it tentatively but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence, and arguably a second (St. Ambrose), but the latter stated elsewhere that there's no hope of salvation for even the most devout catechumen who dies without the Sacrament, and his comments about Valentinian distinguish that he could be washed but not crowned. So the Patristic evidence is very much against BoD, as both the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens admits, and even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admits.
As for the later theologians, yes, I believe that they were mistaken. And I am perfectly entitled to my opinion until the Church steps in and rules on it.
I would like very much to see the Fathers quotes and Rahner's admission, that would be very interesting.
Meanwhile I'm working with these quotes from St. Augustine...
City of God, Bk XIII, Ch.7:
Chap.7.-- Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
De Baptismo, in the Enchiridion Patristicuм, §1629-1630:
That the place of baptism can sometimes assuredly be taken by suffering, the blessed Cyprian takes as no mean proof the words addressed to the thief who was not baptized: 'This day thou shalt be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43). In considering which again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply that which was lacking in respect of baptism [id quod ex baptismo deerat], but also faith and conversion of heart if perchance in straitened times it is impossible to arrange for the celebration of the mystery of baptism.
De Baptismo, Bk I, Ch.18, 28:
...
Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in Catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
...and St. Ambrose:
De obitu Valentiniani consolation, Funeral Oration of the Emperor Valentinian II, 392 AD:
51. But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: "By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest." (Wisdom 4:7)
52. Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?
53. Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.
All quotes are from Sources of BoB and BoD. It clearly demonstrates that belief in BoD and BoB was abundantly present from the Church Fathers till today.
I'm quite open to being proven wrong but against such an overwhelming consensus of Catechisms, Saints and Doctors I find it hard to believe you can find any substantial rejection of BoD or BoB.
I would like to see as many quotes of Saints, catechisms, etc. explicitly denying BoD.
-
I'm quite open to being proven wrong but against such an overwhelming consensus of Catechisms, Saints and Doctors I find it hard to believe you can find any substantial rejection of BoD or BoB.
We should probably take this to a different thread. 5-6 Fathers rejected BoD. This was admitted even by Bellarmine. There's more support for BoB, but there are nuances there too. But let's take it to another thread. Start a thread in the Feeneyism ghetto and I'll respond there. Of the two that can be cited in favor of BoD, St. Augustine later rejected the idea, and St. Ambrose makes statements that contradict the Valentinian oration, and IMO the key is that he states that those can be "washed" but not "crowned" to explain what would otherwise be a contradiction.