Author Topic: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022 (Read 15934 times)

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #60 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:13:53 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 22, 2022, 09:30:41 AM

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #61 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:30:17 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 22, 2022, 09:30:41 AM

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #62 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:43:05 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on October 22, 2022, 11:30:17 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:43:20 AM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 22, 2022, 03:04:00 AM

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/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #64 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:54:39 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 22, 2022, 06:36:58 AM

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #65 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:56:33 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 22, 2022, 11:43:05 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** October 22, 2022, 11:56:50 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #67 on:** October 22, 2022, 12:09:31 PM »

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #68 on:** October 22, 2022, 12:19:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 22, 2022, 12:09:31 PM

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #69 on:** October 22, 2022, 12:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 22, 2022, 11:54:39 AM

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.

MiserereMei · « **Reply #70 on:** October 22, 2022, 12:49:57 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** October 22, 2022, 12:58:20 PM »

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".

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:

Quote

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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #72 on:** October 22, 2022, 01:09:11 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMei on October 22, 2022, 12:49:57 PM

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.

MiserereMei · « **Reply #73 on:** October 22, 2022, 01:34:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 22, 2022, 01:09:11 PM

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.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #74 on:** October 22, 2022, 02:20:44 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMei on October 22, 2022, 01:34:16 PM

(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/

Author Topic: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022 (Read 15934 times)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Tradman

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Tradman

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Tradman

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

MiserereMei

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Ladislaus

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

MiserereMei

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022

Miser Peccator

Re: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022