-
Just to announce that we have just published an introductory video to the flat earth.
Flat Earth Trads are a group of resistance flat earthers.
We hope you enjoy this video and that it answers your questions.
Please forward to anyone interested and make comments.
Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/cGtB-TapXDc
-
good all round introduction.
Does that user Neil Obstat work for NASA?
-
Matthew,
Please put this topic in a sub-forum. You are associating Traditional Catholicism with this non-sense by allowing these people to continually post this material.
-
I understand that the information in the video is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and that some will disagree with its assertions. However, perhaps those who disagree can say why they disagree. The video is trying to show why a flat earth is a logical viewpoint, and from not only a scientific basis, but a traditional Catholic basis as well.
-
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/e24b17fcf78f5841927709deaf58ded7.gif)
-
JohnAnthonyMarie is getting worried.
What are you afraid of? Facing the truth?
as for the images below, we don't deny that items merge with the horizon, but that is all it is. This still doesn't explain why we see objects we shouldn't see.
The globe trolls are out in full...
-
.
I saw this on the ad banner, above. so I did it.
(https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/13525081215521187958)
.
Simple: x is 49.
.
This is much too difficult for flat-earthers.
.
-
:jester: :cheers:
-
Tell me Neil (JohnAnthonyMarie),
Do you use that forumla much at NASA?
-
How dare you flaty-earthers depict your obsession of a flat Earth as a Catholic doctrine, depicting the death of Jesus on the Cross as if it had anything to do with a flat-earth.
With regard to your video, well who are you trying to kid, to be Catholic you must be a flat-earther. By all means believe in what you like, but do not use the Church to support your beliefs..
You begin your proofs with the assumption that the global earth is a perfect ball shaped globe (2m.30-50s). You then give us a six-mile 'experiment, scientific proof, across water that shows no curvature. This of course is the science of goedesy, a science rejected in previous posts on flast-earthism yet here they are using goedesy to claim no curvature.. in fact this science, to determine the shape of the earth has been going on for 300years.
In 1672 King Louis XIV of France approved Domenico Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford is said to have presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles).
You see then that the curve can only be determined over long distances, not six miles as your video says.
Next you try to tell us that the image of the earth held in the hands of the Infant of prague and the earth depicted under Our Lady's medal is a flat earth image. Who the hell are you trying to kid? It is a globe, not a circle, representing what the whole world understood as the earth at the time and since. A globe consists of many circles from poles to equator. A globe then is as much a circule as a flat earth, so stop using 'circle' as meaning only a flat-earth.
Next it goes on to show how the sun can give day and night and seasons over a flat earth (8m 17s). The distance of the sun as determined by astronomers has to be ignored and a new unverifiable low hanging sun inserted that doesn't shine over the whole flat-earth, but only enough to have a flat-earth day and night. It also has the sun moving FASTER and SLOWER. Cassini has measured the size and speed of the sun throughout the year and it does not go fast and slow as the flat earth theory seems to need..
Immediately (8.25) the video admits there 'are other interpretations of this.' Yeh, there are.
Next comes the BIG LIE, that all space photos are fixed to show a global earth. The greatest lie in history. Again, their flat-earth depends on the LIE being TRUE. It then uses the reputation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which we know brought about the heliocentric lie, and used their reputation to support the flat earth. All speculation, no evidence as there is regarding the heliocentric fraud. Not once in all Freemasonic literature have I found MENTION of a flat-earth, an oblate spheroid yes to accommodate Newton's evolution and recession theories, but never flat earth.
(12.50) it begins to use the helio-fraud to confirm a global-earth fraud. It uses the condemnation of Galileo's helio heresy by adding on a global earth heresy. Will you stop this nonsense, global earth was fully accepted by the Church and had nothing to do with the Galilean heresy.
(14.29) talks about 'science' showing a flat earth. You mean the science of denying geodesy, denying the calculation of distances of the sun, moon and planets from earth, denying the thousands of photos of a curved earth etc. The science of denial rather which is no science at all.
St Augustine is then elivated as a flat earther. What any individual Father has to say is not Church teaching. Only if ALL say the same thing is it Catholic and true. So stop using this ploy as necessary Catholic teaching.
'Sacred Scripture makes references to the circle of the earth.' But this circle is always flat and never global. That is their DOGMA and they want to make it Catholic dogma. This is not Catholic but Protestant.
(15;130 GRAVITY. A theory she says, but what she probably means that the CAUSE of gravity is a mystery.
'What causes objects to fall is simple density,' the video tells us, contradicting her rejection of Newtonian cause for gravity, i.e., density. Newton's theory says it is density that determines the pull between celestial bodies, the same density now used in the video (16m.11s)to explain how things probably fall down. Elsewhere gravity has been rejected by Flat-earthers as the reason why for man on earth the sky is always above and the earth underneath no matter where on our global earth we are. Gravity could be a pushing effect. By 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. Then there was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ The supposed formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun, not unlike Einstein’s curled space whirlpool theory to come.
One problem never accounted for is that if I drop a steel ball and a rubber ball, the 'densities' of which are different, then how come in the 'density' theory used in this video and by Newton, the steel ball and the rubber ball will fall at the same rate?
“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).
The video ends with the suggestion that there are Catholics trying to prevent their dogmatic flat earth being accepted as Catholic teaching, supported by Scripture and the Fathers. For me a Catholic, it is an insult to ask Catholics to believe something based on a contradiction of true science (geodesy and astronomy), a contradiction of common sense (that the sun is just up there a bit), and that all space flight is a never ending con, including the rockets we witness flying off into the sky, and finally denying satellites that we can actually see crossing the sky.
-
Matthew,
Please put this topic in a sub-forum. You are associating Traditional Catholicism with this non-sense by allowing these people to continually post this material.
I am tempted to agree. I mentioned the thread(s) in conversation and the other party told me that if the forum I belonged to allows this to continue, then it (CI) has lost credibility as far as they are concerned. Just sayin...
-
St Augustine is then elivated as a flat earther. What any individual Father has to say is not Church teaching. Only if ALL say the same thing is it Catholic and true. So stop using this ploy as necessary Catholic teaching.
Is the work of Domenico Cassini Church teaching? You seem to imply that it is.
-
I am tempted to agree. I mentioned the thread(s) in conversation and the other party told me that if the forum I belonged to allows this to continue, then it (CI) has lost credibility as far as they are concerned. Just sayin...
I'm sorry that you are offended by the subject. Did you view the video?
If Matthew wants to move this to a subforum, that's fine with me, but I then I didn't start the thread.
-
I'd have to take the subject more seriously to be actually offended. Traditonal Catholics, and especially the resistance have enough bad press without being pegged as flat-Earthers too. What's next? Arguing for the evangelization of Bigfoot or the revival of trepanning?
-
I can also add that the opinion of JohnAnthonyMarie is not worth much considering how abusive he is to the female users of the forum.
WHAT?
You are way out of line with this outrageous lie!
This type of behavior can't possible be allowed.
-
I am tempted to agree. I mentioned the thread(s) in conversation and the other party told me that if the forum I belonged to allows this to continue, then it (CI) has lost credibility as far as they are concerned. Just sayin...
If someone here supported communal property and a discussion ensued, is CI tainted as a forum for communists? No.
If someone starts a discussion and negatively comments on interracial marriages, is CI tainted as a racist forum? No.
So why would a discussion about the flat earth taint CI as being without credibility? I think the comment says more about your "other party" and his propensity to jump to conclusions than it does about CI,
-
WHAT?
You are way out of line with this outrageous lie!
This type of behavior can't possible be allowed.
I'm glad his comment was deleted, it was WAY out of line. Hopefully he has been banned.
-
If someone here supported communal property and a discussion ensued, is CI tainted as a forum for communists? No.
If someone starts a discussion and negatively comments on interracial marriages, is CI tainted as a racist forum? No.
So why would a discussion about the flat earth taint CI as being without credibility? I think the comment says more about your "other party" and his propensity to jump to conclusions than it does about CI,
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry. 1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
-
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry. 1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
First of all, it wasn't a "line". (Using that term seems tantamount to calling me some kind of lying troublemaker. Is that what you're going for here?) It really happened, I was really discussing some of the views put forward here with an educated person with a background in hard sciences to hear their opinion. That was their actual response. So, it's no "line" that I fabricated to cause complaints to Matthew. Matthew is a big boy, he can decide for himself what he wants on his forum, whether to create a subforum, or whether to forbid the subject wholesale. All the "incessant pms" in the world won't budge him if he thinks he's in the right. If you've been around very long you should know that. So if you think I'm using some "revolutionary tactics" to generate an illusion of support to create pressure", you're delusional. My record here speaks for itself; I calls 'em as I see's 'em, and that's all there is to it.
-
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry. 1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
PS- I think it's unfair of you to accuse Neil of using a secondary, shill account to bolster his arguments. That's a bit of a serious accusation that's frowned upon without proof; and if I'm not mistaken would be grounds for banning. Besides, I don't think the world is prepared for a Neil-clone.
-
At first I thought those last two posts were a waste of time, but I am now very happy you put them up.
They show a few things. First, how little you actually have followed the flat earth threads and seen how disgraceful and dishonest Neils behaviour has been. You really should be ashamed that you are defending him at all. I'm not attacking you for not having followed flat earth, (we all have busy lives) but you need to get up to speed a little before commenting on all this.
You yourself said in another thread only recently
"I have never given this subject much thought, so please excuse my ignorance." . Ignorance is fine, we have to be ignorant before you we know, but the context of all this is that it is a small minority of globetrolls who have been engaging in very hostile behavior to us flat earthers. Why don't you just watch the video and start asking questions instead of attacking us without thinking. We're all willing to have civil conversations about it insofar as we have the time.
Hope we can have that chat soon.
-
Is the work of Domenico Cassini Church teaching? You seem to imply that it is.
Again I find defence of flat-earthism sinks to the rediculous, resorting to any rejection tactic that you can think up. His geocentrism was certainly Church teaching. There is no other Church teaching on the subject matter than that.
Cassini was a devout Catholic astronomer and surveyer who was hated by the antichrist Voltaire for his discoveries that falsified Newton's heliocentrism.
He was an astronomer and surveyer. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Domenico Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States.
As an astronomer he was ther greatest that ever lived. His work and reputation, because it falsified heliocentric astronomy and physics has been hidden for centuries.
-
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry. 1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
My my, the tactics of you global earthers are getting as near to blasphemy as you can get. Totally unable to reply to the anti-flat-earth science offered by me and others earlier, you simply ignore it and and push the ridiculous notion that flat-earthism is upheld by the Catholic faith. It is not and to say so brings the Catholic faith into dispute.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." --- St Augustine.
There are many readers of this forum, I am sure, who, upon reading this flat-earthism, a position CONTRARY to the sciences and human reasoning, who must laugh at what some Catholics believe in, bring the faith down to the level of a idiotic belief. This is exactly what is happening since this flat-earthism arrived on this and other Catholic forums. Just read through a few of them and you can see the HARM it is having amoung Catholics.
It is patently obvious you avoid answering the scientific arguments and the conspiracy theories you say is ongoing among thousands and thousands of people and institutions that are beyond belief. The idea that no aeroplane has ever flown over the 'edge' of your flat earth, which would have happened if it were true, is another joke. Next you will be saying aeroplanes are like rockets and satellites, fiction.
Here above you are defending your right to post your position. Fair enough. But posting a position requires that you defend it against objections put up by those opposed to the assertions made in the opening post and those that follow. I posted serious scientific reasons why flat-earthism is not true science. For one that six-mile 'proof' that the earth is not curved is a joke as the curve can only be detected scientifically over a few thousand miles. Yet you simply ignore or dismiss the arguments hoping the 'Catholic faith' of your victims will suffice. Such an abuse of the Catholic faith in my eyes is a sin against that faith.
-
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry. 1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
Well said, Kiwiboy. Thank you for posting this.
-
At first I thought those last two posts were a waste of time, but I am now very happy you put them up.
They show a few things. First, how little you actually have followed the flat earth threads and seen how disgraceful and dishonest Neils behaviour has been. You really should be ashamed that you are defending him at all. I'm not attacking you for not having followed flat earth, (we all have busy lives) but you need to get up to speed a little before commenting on all this.
You yourself said in another thread only recently
"I have never given this subject much thought, so please excuse my ignorance." . Ignorance is fine, we have to be ignorant before you we know, but the context of all this is that it is a small minority of globetrolls who have been engaging in very hostile behavior to us flat earthers. Why don't you just watch the video and start asking questions instead of attacking us without thinking. We're all willing to have civil conversations about it insofar as we have the time.
Hope we can have that chat soon.
I don't really understand why there's such hostility toward flat-earthers. Cassini even goes so far as to say that it's a sin against the Catholic Faith to believe in a flat earth. Which is ridiculous. I certainly would never say that it's a sin to believe in a globe earth, since our salvation isn't dependent on what we believe the shape of the earth to be.
I believe that a flat earth lends itself to a stronger belief in God, in that, for example, when we pray, our prayers are offered to God who is ABOVE us. Aren't our prayers as to be as incense going up to God, as it is described in Holy Mass?
On a spherical earth, which direction is God? I've not yet seen a globe-earther who can answer this. Since Our Lord sits on the right hand of God the Father, then it seems only logical that God the Father is above us. The ancient Hebrews believed in a flat-plane earth. They based their belief on what is written in the Old Testament account of the earth. Globe-earthers seem to believe the ancient Hebrews were wrong to believe in a flat earth.
-
I don't really understand why there's such hostility toward flat-earthers. Cassini even goes so far as to say that it's a sin against the Catholic Faith to believe in a flat earth. Which is ridiculous. I certainly would never say that it's a sin to believe in a globe earth, since our salvation isn't dependent on what we believe the shape of the earth to be.
I believe that a flat earth lends itself to a stronger belief in God, in that, for example, when we pray, our prayers are offered to God who is ABOVE us. Aren't our prayers as to be as incense going up to God, as it is described in Holy Mass?
On a spherical earth, which direction is God? I've not yet seen a globe-earther who can answer this. Since Our Lord sits on the right hand of God the Father, then it seems only logical that God the Father is above us. The ancient Hebrews believed in a flat-plane earth. They based their belief on what is written in the Old Testament account of the earth. Globe-earthers seem to believe the ancient Hebrews were wrong to believe in a flat earth.
What I said was that it was a sin in my opinion to USE THE CATHOLIC FAITH to try to get people to believe in a flat erarth. A flat earth has NOTHING to do with the Catholic faith IN ANY WAY. That is my main reason to opppose this video and other such posts.
It seems you are unable to answer the scientific and practical reasons that show that we do not live on a flat-earth. Instead you come up with the garbage that only a flat earth has an UP for God and heaven. To be honest this is a debate I cannot believe has any credibility left to it.
It sounds to me some are regurgitating the past.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Speculations concerning the rotundity of the earth and the possible existence of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) "with their feet turned towards ours" were of interest to the Fathers of the Early Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) only in so far as they seemed to encroach upon the fundamental Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) dogma (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) of the unity of the human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and the consequent universality of original sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) and redemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm). This is clearly seen from the following passage of St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) (City of God XVI.9 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm)):
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical inform, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). For Scripture, which confirms the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm), teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) descended from that one first man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm)."
This opinion of St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) was commonly held until the progress of science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm), whilst confirming his main contention that the human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) is one, dissipated the scruples arising from a defective knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of geography (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06447a.htm). A singular exception occurs to us in the middle of the eighth century. From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) (1 May, 748, addressed to St. Boniface (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm), we learn that the great Apostle of Germany (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06484b.htm) had invoked the papal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02353c.htm) named Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm), generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm), and later Archbishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm) of Salzburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13411b.htm). Among other alleged misdeeds and errors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) was numbered that of holding "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), another sun and moon". In reply, the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) directs St. Boniface (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm) to convoke a council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) and, "if it be made clear" that Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm) adheres to this "perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and to his own soul", to "expel him from the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), deprived of his priestly (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) dignity". This is the only information that we possess regarding an incident which is made to figure largely in the imaginary warfare (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm) between theology and science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm).
That Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm) was ever really tried, condemned, or forced to retract, is an assumption without any foundation in history (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm). On the contrary, if he was in fact the future Archbishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm) of Salzburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13411b.htm), it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by "other men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)" he did not understand a race of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) not descended from Adam (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm) and redeemed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm) by the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) to be "perverse" and "contrary to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm)".
-
What I said was that it was a sin in my opinion to USE THE CATHOLIC FAITH to try to get people to believe in a flat erarth. A flat earth has NOTHING to do with the Catholic faith IN ANY WAY. That is my main reason to opppose this video and other such posts.
It seems you are unable to answer the scientific and practical reasons that show that we do not live on a flat-earth. Instead you come up with the garbage that only a flat earth has an UP for God and heaven. To be honest this is a debate I cannot believe has any credibility left to it.
It sounds to me some are regurgitating the past.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Speculations concerning the rotundity of the earth and the possible existence of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) "with their feet turned towards ours" were of interest to the Fathers of the Early Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) only in so far as they seemed to encroach upon the fundamental Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) dogma (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) of the unity of the human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and the consequent universality of original sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) and redemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm). This is clearly seen from the following passage of St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) (City of God XVI.9 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm)):
This opinion of St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) was commonly held until the progress of science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm), whilst confirming his main contention that the human race (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) is one, dissipated the scruples arising from a defective knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of geography (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06447a.htm). A singular exception occurs to us in the middle of the eighth century. From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) (1 May, 748, addressed to St. Boniface (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm), we learn that the great Apostle of Germany (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06484b.htm) had invoked the papal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02353c.htm) named Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm), generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm), and later Archbishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm) of Salzburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13411b.htm). Among other alleged misdeeds and errors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) was numbered that of holding "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), another sun and moon". In reply, the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) directs St. Boniface (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm) to convoke a council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) and, "if it be made clear" that Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm) adheres to this "perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and to his own soul", to "expel him from the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), deprived of his priestly (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) dignity". This is the only information that we possess regarding an incident which is made to figure largely in the imaginary warfare (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm) between theology and science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm).
That Vergilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm) was ever really tried, condemned, or forced to retract, is an assumption without any foundation in history (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm). On the contrary, if he was in fact the future Archbishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm) of Salzburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13411b.htm), it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by "other men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)" he did not understand a race of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) not descended from Adam (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm) and redeemed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm) by the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) to be "perverse" and "contrary to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm)".
Cassini,
I'm not going to respond to you further. Your contempt for flat-earthers and their (our) views is obvious, and it makes no sense to debate with you. I'm not so good with the scientific end of the issue. Even so, I would be willing to try to debate with a well-intentioned person who does not agree with the flat earth. You are not well-intentioned. You are hostile.
-
Is the any occurrence in Church teaching that declares the Earth is flat?
-
To all the heliocentric model believers, the Church has spoken. Heliocentrism is condemned. There are two other doctrinal teachings on the subject as well: 1. Jerusalem is in the center of the earth. 2. There are no antipodes, that is, no one is walking around upside down to other people. Of all the saints that taught anything about the subject of the flat earth, all described in some detail the form of the earth--flat and joined to the firmament of heaven. Some, like Aquinas only mention their contrary beliefs and do not teach on the subject at all. One hundred percent of pagans espouse, promote and bully people regarding the heliocentric round earth as an integral teaching of their model.
Modern Geocentrism, (MG) is a modern substitute for heliocentrism, with its stationary globe hanging in space. It is a theory incompatible with scripture and historical Geocentric cosmology. How can earth be a foundation, a foot stool for God, and actually have a face as scripture describes, when it is a ball hanging mid-air? MG is nothing less than the fraternal twin of Heliocentrism (Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines). It is an intermediate catch-all that rescues many pagan cosmological lies because thinking people know we aren't moving at break neck speed around the universe. Other than the movement of the earth, MG is virtually identical to the Heliocentric tales that spawned bloody revolutions, evolution, millions-year-old-earth, global warming, alien life, space indoctrination, Godless origins, and all notions inherent to the atheistic Big Bang theory. In MG the water above the firmament is denied or dismissed. Do they really have proof that our sun is 100 million miles away but still under the dome? That's some big dome and ginormous earth! And where’s the water above the firmament in the MG theory? Are stars and planets in or out of the ‘globe’ firmament? They never say. Distance from earth to the sun, moon and stars remains identical in MG as the Heliocentric theory, and both are contrary to scripture and Church teaching (above). In 'outer space', stars are said to be enormous and Venus and Mars are said to be planets of terrain, things easily proven false with a simple camera. Back on earth relativity dominates, demanding outrageous explanations for water sticking to the outside of a ball. Things like gravity, dark matter, string theory, antimatter and evolution, and the Big Bang, etc. In MG, the horizon is no longer horizontal, let alone true or level; directions and measurements quickly become contradictory, explained away, or outright denied. Up isn't up anymore, level isn't level, curve isn't really curve. Casuistry, imprecision, equivocation and therefore perfidious lies remain empowered in MG. There are only two models ever considered in the scientific world: heliocentrism (with the globe) and geocentrism (flat earth). And heliocentrism has been condemned.
-
Why do 'geocentric' Catholics argue that earth is fixed and stationary based on scripture, saying, “Scripture is to be believed because God says earth is fixed and the sun moves”, but undermine their first argument when it comes to flat earth passages, saying, “Scripture is not to be interpreted literally”?
The flip flopping contortions of heliocentric believers is outrageous.
-
Also, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine teach that human senses are infallible. So when people see flat water, know that water surface is flat viewing it that way over and over and over and over again, we KNOW water doesn't curve and stick to the outside of a ball earth.
-
What then can be more absurd than the Pagan doctrine that the earth is in the |xvii middle of the universe? Here then the Pagans are at war with divine Scripture; but, not content with this, they are at war also with common sense itself and the very laws of nature, declaring, as they do, that the earth is a central sphere, and that there are Antipodes, who must be standing head-downward and on whom the rain must fall up. --Introduction, Christian Topography, Cosmas Indiocopleustes 550 AD
-
•. In Christian Topography, Cosmas of Indiocopleustes… “refuted from Scripture and common sense the impious Pagan cosmography, according to which the earth is a sphere.” 550 AD.
-
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.
•pg 104 War Between Science and Theology…White
•
•Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round. While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped. Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence. --The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres
So now, where oh where are the Catholic teachings of a spherical earth?
-
Heliocentric nonsense:
-
Surveyor and Engineer of thirty years wrote to the Birmingham Weekly Mercury, Feb. 15th, 1890 stating, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”
-
If the earth is flat why not just sail to the edge and send us picture?
-
Is the any occurrence in Church teaching that declares the Earth is flat?
Again, has the Church ever officially declared the Earth is flat? While I do not believe the Church has ever declared the Earth is flat, I am interested in any reference to the contrary.
-
"the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." -Saint Bede (De temporum ratione, 32).
-
Again, has the Church ever officially declared the Earth is flat? While I do not believe the Church has ever declared the Earth is flat, I am interested in any reference to the contrary.
Scripture, Church Fathers, Pope Alexander VII and a myriad of saints have weighed in on the geocentric/heliocentric question. Not even one saintly or authoritative Father or Doctor or saint has taught otherwise. The geocentric system is necessarily a flat earth cosmology. There is plenty of proof on which side the Catholic Church sits, especially since She officially condemned heliocentrism during the Galileo Affair. The only people who ever promoted heliocentric round earth throughout the centuries were pagans and their heliocentric model cannot be believed--official Church teaching. And the kicker is, there is no scientific proof for a round heliocentric earth/cosmology. All scientific proof shows earth is flat and stationary and that the sun, moon and stars revolve around it under the firmament. The Church doesn't have to officially say "earth is flat" in order for Catholics to know its flat, with a dome, bound to the heavens like a block of stone, set on pillars, with four corners, at the bottom of the universe, like a footstool for God, with a face, never to be moved, as scripture describes. Just like the people waited until the 19th century to hear the words officially from the Church that Mary was immaculately conceived, they will have to wait for the "official" statement that earth is flat. However, the proof is there for those who want to know. Further, because the damage from pagan cosmology promotes evolution, a Godless creation, false science, relativism, atheism, imprecision and lies, there is no reason to hold such a theory.
-
"the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." -Saint Bede (De temporum ratione, 32).
This statement can only be understood in light of what the Church has always taught. What isn't clear by Bede's statement is the fuller picture of how the Church Fathers and saints understood it. That creation is indeed a sphere, with the firmament being the top of the sphere, flat earth where people live in the center, and the pit of hell at the bottom, together forming a globe. Pictures of this are represented in many bibles, both ancient and new.
-
Scripture, Church Fathers, Pope Alexander VII and a myriad of saints
Once again, I requested any reference where the Church teaches the world is flat.
-
If the earth is flat why not just sail to the edge and send us picture?
Lucky for you, someone has recently been to the "edge" and has seen where the dome meets the earth. Cosmas of Indiocopleustes and other explorers also explain exactly what it looks like which is identical to the Encyclopedia. So, while I haven't been there, others have and described it for us.
-
Once again, I requested any reference where the Church teaches the world is flat.
Once again, read what's posted before you continue to demand. What is posted here is more than sufficient to address the question, unless you care to learn something and I can continue for days on end. There is that much proof that the Catholic Church teaches geocentric flat earth and condemns the pagan heliocentric globe. And for those who have Faith, in the Church, in scripture, in truth, no additional proof is needed. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. Take what you will.
-
Are you unable to produce a single reference to the Church teaching that the Earth is flat?
Conjecture, reasoning, and speculation aside, I'm sure you must have at least one authoritative reference you can share
-
Are you unable to produce a single reference to the Church teaching that the Earth is flat? Conjecture, reasoning, and speculation aside, I'm sure you must have at least one authoritative reference you can share
Your attempts to debunk the truth are almost amusing. Almost. Not only have I provided multiple references, clearly Catholic teaching, you take the time to put up one quote. Not only was there only ONE, it didn't prove your point, but mine. Your pertinacity in error is evident to all.
-
Thank you for confirming the fact that the Church does not and has not taught that the Earth is flat.
-
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/galileopalazzostrozzi/object/HildegardOfBingenLiberDivinorumOperumZoom.html (http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/galileopalazzostrozzi/object/HildegardOfBingenLiberDivinorumOperumZoom.html)
-
Stubborn heliocentrics defy the Church and simple logic.
-
Stubborn heliocentrics defy the Church and simple logic.
You are unable to produce a single reference to where the Church teaches the Earth is flat. I thought this simple request of mine would be easily produced through your extensive knowledge on the topic
-
Lucky for you, someone has recently been to the "edge" and has seen where the dome meets the earth. Cosmas of Indiocopleustes and other explorers also explain exactly what it looks like which is identical to the Encyclopedia. So, while I haven't been there, others have and described it for us.
I cannot locate that video on youtube, I scrolled through all of his vids and didn't see it. I did see 4 other videos by other youtubers and all referenced back to a woman reading that same passage, I assume those are re-uploads.
I would think that there are enough flat-earth/geocentrics who could donate to a go-fund-me page dedicated to raising money for an independent expedition to the end of the earth. Such an expedition could certainly put an end to the speculation and tossing about of conspiracy theories.
-
(https://i11.servimg.com/u/f11/19/66/52/64/nasa_a10.jpg)
-
Where has the Church taught that the earth is a sphere?
-
Where has the Church taught that the earth is a sphere?
No one is here trying to convince you the Church has, but to the contrary, several people here are attempting to represent the opposite.
-
Well it's you who keeps asking.
In any case, whether it is a teaching is a red herring.
The important thing is that it is scientific. We can't deny our senses without being fools.
-
Edit
-
Well it's you who keeps asking.
In any case, whether it is a teaching is a red herring.
The important thing is that it is scientific. We can't deny our senses without being fools.
Thank you. We agree then that the Church does not teach that the Earth is flat. Good, so now we can review the science.
-
Here is an early proof used to calculate the circuмference of the Earth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circuмference.svg
-
We're not agreeing on anything in relation to the above. I just said it was a red herring.
As for your maths, it is nothing but the imposition of spherical trigonometry on two points on our flat earth. It makes the presupposition that the earth is round and then imposes this trigonometry on it.
But that is completely ridiculous. It is a nice mathematical abstraction, but doesn't prove the earth to be round. It presumes it.
-
"Biruni's estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius had an error of 0.0026 and was 16.8 km less than the current value of 6,356.7 km."
His estimate is impressive in that it was made over a thousand years ago.
-
The first physical proof that the Earth is NOT FLAT was accomplished by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Elcano
-
The first physical proof that the Earth is NOT FLAT was accomplished by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Elcano
Saying it doesn't make it true. A story, no matter how long its told cannot provide serious criteria against empirical proof. Real time repeatable experiments pretty much dust this statement.
-
Saying it doesn't make it true. A story, no matter how long its told cannot provide serious criteria against empirical proof. Real time repeatable experiments pretty much dust this statement.
Provide one
-
Where has the Church taught that the earth is a sphere?
.
Pope Pius XII, for one, referred in his official writings several times to the "globe" earth.
.
Are you claiming that a sphere is not a globe?
.
You can see in the ISS video the way water droplets in zero gravity conform to a globe, or spheroid shape. How do you explain that appearance? All CGI, Photoshop and fake, eh?
.
Okay, if it's so simple to fake it with F/X, why don't the flat-earthers make a video showing how a water droplet in zero gravity conforms to their "flat-earth" model? Simple, no?
.
-
.
Pope Pius XII, for one, referred in his official writings several times to the "globe" earth.
.
Are you claiming that a sphere is not a globe?
.
You can see in the ISS video the way water droplets in zero gravity conform to a globe, or spheroid shape. How do you explain that appearance? All CGI, Photoshop and fake, eh?
.
Okay, if it's so simple to fake it with F/X, why don't the flat-earthers make a video showing how a water droplet in zero gravity conforms to their "flat-earth" model? Simple, no?
.
Neil,
Just for the sake of everyone reading these posts, and so you can show there is no conflict of interests, can you you confirm whether or not you work for NASA?
You don't have to say where or what department, because it is a very big organisation, I just think it would be good for people to know so they can be objective in judging your arguments.
Pius XII? The same Pius XII who gave us the '58 Holy week? Don't you have anything a little more older than that, since everybody knew the earth to be round, as you claim for a lot longer.
Kind of hard to bring up advanced CGI when we're not in possession of the expensive equipment necessary, not the training in CGI, nor the time. But this is the same tactic you use against flat earthers all the time; being to make unrealistic ridiculous demands of them in an attempt to make them look stupid and you smart.
It's not arrogant people coming to flat earth btw, but humble ones. The arrogant will never accept it.
-
"Biruni's estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius had an error of 0.0026 and was 16.8 km less than the current value of 6,356.7 km."
His estimate is impressive in that it was made over a thousand years ago.
It's not really that impressive considering the ancient greeks had pretty advanced maths.
I need to explain to the honest people reading this though how this does not prove the round earth. Calculating the circuмference of the flat earth is possible because the sun has a fixed radius over 24 hours, going OVER the earth.
If you impose spherical trigonometry on top of this you come up with a RADIUS of and imaginary globe earth, mentioned above. But this is total fantasy. It presumes the earth is a globe. It is just turning numbers into other numbers by putting them into equations. It doesn't bear any relation to reality.
I am happy in a way that you brought this up, because it gives another occasion for the truth to shine even brighter.
-
Neil,
Just for the sake of everyone reading these posts, and so you can show there is no conflict of interests, can you you confirm whether or not you work for NASA?
You don't have to say where or what department, because it is a very big organisation, I just think it would be good for people to know so they can be objective in judging your arguments.
Pius XII? The same Pius XII who gave us the '58 Holy week? Don't you have anything a little more older than that, since everybody knew the earth to be round, as you claim for a lot longer.
‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7).
There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted.
The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.
Only a globe can extend itself equally on all sides, a flat earth cannot. So here is another global earther.
-
JohnAnthonyMarie is getting worried.
What are you afraid of? Facing the truth?
as for the images below, we don't deny that items merge with the horizon, but that is all it is. This still doesn't explain why we see objects we shouldn't see.
The globe trolls are out in full...
Yes, let's start a riot! Burn the flat earthers! :heretic:
-
this is the level we have descended to.
-
Neil,
Just for the sake of everyone reading these posts, and so you can show there is no conflict of interests, can you you confirm whether or not you work for NASA?
You don't have to say where or what department, because it is a very big organisation, I just think it would be good for people to know so they can be objective in judging your arguments.
Pius XII? The same Pius XII who gave us the '58 Holy week? Don't you have anything a little more older than that, since everybody knew the earth to be round, as you claim for a lot longer.
Kind of hard to bring up advanced CGI when we're not in possession of the expensive equipment necessary, not the training in CGI, nor the time. But this is the same tactic you use against flat earthers all the time; being to make unrealistic ridiculous demands of them in an attempt to make them look stupid and you smart.
It's not arrogant people coming to flat earth btw, but humble ones. The arrogant will never accept it.
.
Do you think someone must work for NASA just because they can compose cogent sentences?
.
And you're a pre-Pius XII sedevacantist, I presume.
.
You don't need CGI to measure an angle between two objects in the sky. Just get a protractor out. 3rd Grade level.
.
It's the flat-earthers who make the claim that it's so easy to fake the videos from ISS, so why can't they prove their claim? Okay, if it's so simple to fake it with F/X, why don't the flat-earthers make a video showing how a water droplet in zero gravity conforms to their "flat-earth" model? Simple, no?
.
If I look "smart" all you have to do is show me where I'm wrong and I'll look not so smart. Your turn.
.
In 3 weeks millions of people will line up across the USA for the biggest solar eclipse in US history.
Are you going to say they're all wasting their time because it won't happen?
Or are you going to say that it must be a faked event staged by NASA just to make the flat-earthers look stupid?
If it's so easy to fake an eclipse why can't the flat-earthers do it too?
When has any flat-earther been able to predict an eclipse?
Or what flat-earther can even explain what causes an eclipse to occur in the first place?
.
This is all so obvious it isn't funny.
-
this is the level we have descended to.
.
Speaking for yourself no doubt.
-
Saying it doesn't make it true. A story, no matter how long its told cannot provide serious criteria against empirical proof. Real time repeatable experiments pretty much dust this statement.
(That was replying to JohnAnthonyMarie's post)
.
Dear JohnAnthonyMarie, the flat-earthers do not recognize the technology of celestial navigation used by sailors for the past several hundred years. I have posted some very good videos on how dead reckoning is accomplished at sea, which is very interesting to say the least, and the best they can come up with is stuff like you see here,
.
"Saying it doesn't make it true. A story, no matter how long its told cannot provide serious criteria against empirical proof."
.
BTW no better example of empirical proof could there be than sailing a ship using dead reckoning to verify position at sea.
.
Flat-earthers have no idea what empirical proof means. The fact that an experiment is REPEATABLE and therefore verifiable, is an essential element of empirical proof. Flat-earthers like to copy key words and use them out of context for their meaningless diatribe, which exposes their ignorance. It's pretty embarrassing. :-X
-
Neil is still not denying that he works for NASA.
-
I'm glad his comment was deleted, it was WAY out of line. Hopefully he has been banned.
.
He continued to post, but not for long. He couldn't stand the heat so he left the kitchen.
Flat-earthers don't get to run rampant with their malicious trolling here as they would hope to.
.
-
.
In 3 weeks millions of people will line up across the USA for the biggest solar eclipse in US history.
Are you going to say they're all wasting their time because it won't happen?
Or are you going to say that it must be a faked event staged by NASA just to make the flat-earthers look stupid?
If it's so easy to fake an eclipse why can't the flat-earthers do it too?
When has any flat-earther been able to predict an eclipse?
Or what flat-earther can even explain what causes an eclipse to occur in the first place?
.
This is all so obvious it isn't funny.
.
Little did I know!
.
I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams that flat-earthers would accuse NASA of causing the appearance of a solar eclipse by means of holographic projection, and that there was NO MOON in the sky anywhere near the sun. They caught me completely by surprise.
.
But in the end, they're just showing how ridiculously unobservant they are, after all the same cretins made the video in the OP of this thread.
.
Provide a transcript and I will refute it line by line, but I'll not stoop to transcribing it myself. It's not worth it.
.
-
Yes, let's start a riot! Burn the flat earthers! :heretic:
.
So there's no reason to be concerned, and the FBI doesn't care if the flat-earthers get torched. No loss, I guess.
.
I'll bring some sticks if you bring some marshmallows.
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgardenclub.homedepot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fmarshmallows-fire-SS-580x400.jpg&sp=16d904d210861d45560cb4ce419a8aaf)
-
Neil obstat works for NASA and believes in aliens. All confirmed on this web forum.
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/765/
Hey Neil, you're being really active in the last while. All during working hours. Are they paying you extra at work to do all this posting? Please do tell us. I'm serious.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
-
Neil obstat works for NASA and believes in aliens. All confirmed on this web forum.
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/765/
Hey Neil, you're being really active in the last while. All during working hours. Are they paying you extra at work to do all this posting? Please do tell us. I'm serious.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/)
1. Screenshot? Something? Racking a round and letting fly isn't exactly precise. How would we KNOW exactly what you're referring to?
2. Past tense is not present.
-
1. Screenshot? Something? Racking a round and letting fly isn't exactly precise. How would we KNOW exactly what you're referring to?
2. Past tense is not present.
It's enough.
-
It's enough.
Well miss/ma'am, with all due, it is like a 'little bit' of most other 'knowledge' just enough for trouble. If you really think like that you are constantly imperiled. If you don't, then you lie in which case you are constantly imperiled.
Either way, saying that this is "enough", is hazardous.
Also, you may not mean to call me a liar, but you are calling me a liar. I'm saying, at least for me that, "no, it is not enough"
Assumption isn't just a block on a Catholic calendar.
Tell you what, why don't I start telling you when you've eaten enough, how you feel, what your opinions are, or just, in general, what your needs are, and when they are met i.e. "It's enough."?
How would that be?
-
.
Here we are with all the proof we need, flat-earthers can't deal with the stupidity of their claims so they try to go off topic.
.
The thread's topic is the stupid video in the OP which is a running joke.
.
It is a continuous drivel of false statements and nonsense, presented with the pretense of being attractive to traditional Catholics, when it in fact is an ongoing embarrassment to anyone with a thinking brain (which excludes flat-earthers, apparently).
.
One Stupidity After Another would be a more honest title for the video.
.
Keep on asking about me working for NASA because it's a lot of fun to show your posts to friends. You've already been so very entertaining for me, I can hardly stand it so I had to tell you thank you for all the fun we've had at your expense.
:jester: :jester: :jester:
-
Well miss/ma'am, with all due, it is like a 'little bit' of most other 'knowledge' just enough for trouble. If you really think like that you are constantly imperiled. If you don't, then you lie in which case you are constantly imperiled.
Either way, saying that this is "enough", is hazardous.
Also, you may not mean to call me a liar, but you are calling me a liar. I'm saying, at least for me that, "no, it is not enough"
Assumption isn't just a block on a Catholic calendar.
Tell you what, why don't I start telling you when you've eaten enough, how you feel, what your opinions are, or just, in general, what your needs are, and when they are met i.e. "It's enough."?
How would that be?
You have addressed nothing. You have no Catholic proof of earth being a globe, let alone scientific proof and you were unable to refute St. Chrysotom, St Jerome, St Augustine, Cosmas, Pope Alexander VII, scripture, infallible teachings on antipodes, Jerusalem being the center of the earth, lack of curvature, NASA hoaxes, sticky water, nothing! No content from baal earthers, ever. Just bloat and feathers.
-
You have addressed nothing. You have no Catholic proof of earth being a globe, let alone scientific proof and you were unable to refute St. Chrysotom, St Jerome, St Augustine, Cosmas, Pope Alexander VII, scripture, infallible teachings on antipodes, Jerusalem being the center of the earth, lack of curvature, NASA hoaxes, sticky water, nothing! No content from baal earthers, ever. Just bloat and feathers.
Did you quote the wrong person?
What does one thing have to do with another? Nyquil is not a beverage miss/ma'am.
I just asked for specificity regarding the 'charges' made against NO. Just pasting links doesn't cut it.
That's all. Didn't say they were true, nor did I say they were false. How could I if I'm not sure what is being referred to; THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR SPECIFICITY.
Get it?
-
Did you quote the wrong person?
What does one thing have to do with another? Nyquil is not a beverage miss/ma'am.
I just asked for specificity regarding the 'charges' made against NO. Just pasting links doesn't cut it.
That's all. Didn't say they were true, nor did I say they were false. How could I if I'm not sure what is being referred to; THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR SPECIFICITY.
Get it?
Back at ya, buddy!
-
Back at ya, buddy!
What "Back at..." me "buddy"? Are you drinking the candy-water under the sink lady? Seriously, you're coming in crazy and unreadable. What are you talking about?
-
What "Back at..." me "buddy"? Are you drinking the candy-water under the sink lady? Seriously, you're coming in crazy and unreadable. What are you talking about?
Mmm, so good!
-
You have no Catholic proof of earth being a globe, let alone scientific proof...
.
All you have to do is look at the moon and you can see the earth's a spheroid planet like all the other spheroid planets.
.
Planets have just one shape, and they're very much visible if you just open your eyes and look.
.
Look at the moon this coming week when it approaches its first quarter and you'll see proof before your eyes.
.
Or continue to not look, as flat-earthers like so much to do, and continue in your ignorance.
.
-
You have addressed nothing. You have no Catholic proof of earth being a globe, let alone scientific proof and you were unable to refute St. Chrysotom, St Jerome, St Augustine, Cosmas, Pope Alexander VII, scripture, infallible teachings on antipodes, Jerusalem being the center of the earth, lack of curvature, NASA hoaxes, sticky water, nothing! No content from baal earthers, ever. Just bloat and feathers.
Sigh...This group has taken over this forum. In the absense of new LoverofTruth/Blessing of Desire prolific copy/pasting, they have resorted to flooding CI with their "doctrine." If you don't believe in the flat church then you are a pegan apostate..."baal earthers", exhorter of lies...."works for NASA", or and idiot if you believe in science, planets, non electric suns. Flooding multiple threads with YouTube videos talking about hypnotism, holograms, and other cօռspιʀαcιҽs...as well as the condemning/bickering detract from the message and purpose of the resistance.
-
Sigh...This group has taken over this forum. In the absense of new LoverofTruth/Blessing of Desire prolific copy/pasting, they have resorted to flooding CI with their "doctrine." If you don't believe in the flat church then you are a pegan apostate..."baal earthers", exhorter of lies...."works for NASA", or and idiot if you believe in science, planets, non electric suns. Flooding multiple threads with YouTube videos talking about hypnotism, holograms, and other cօռspιʀαcιҽs...as well as the condemning/bickering detract from the message and purpose of the resistance.
There are only two threads that have been started by flat-earthers.
The others have been started by anti-flat-earthers.
The anti-flat earthers are far more uncharitable and immature in their sometimes vicious attempts to denounce it. IMO, that's more of a detriment to the Resisitance.
The nastiness of the anti-flat earthers is embarrassing. You don't seem to be at all concerned about that. That's just how traditionalists do things, I guess.
-
There are only two threads that have been started by flat-earthers.
The others have been started by anti-flat-earthers.
The anti-flat earthers are far more uncharitable and immature in their sometimes vicious attempts to denounce it. IMO, that's more of a detriment to the Resisitance.
The nastiness of the anti-flat earthers is embarrassing. You don't seem to be at all concerned about that. That's just how traditionalists do things, I guess.
The anti-flat earthers are not only far more uncharitable, returning personal attacks for information given, they remain terribly uninformed... and they want to stay that way so they can continue to be uncharitable, it seems. When scripture, saints, Church Fathers, popes, science, math, and reason all come together to unmask modern indoctrination, a reasonable Catholic will readily consider the information. Zero consideration with lots of rhetoric from many globalists in this forum. Its like they have something to lose. They would rather defend NASA and pagan scientists, all proven liars about moving earth, than consider they might have been indoctrinated in more ways than one.
-
The Church has always used images to help the less learned understand.
-
The Church has always used images to help the less learned understand.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/catholic-intro-video-to-flat-earth/?action=dlattach;attach=10723;image)
.
Thank you. Our Lord holds the earth in the palm of His hand.........
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads7.wikiart.org%2Fimages%2Fgiovanni-battista-piranesi%2Fhalf-figure-of-a-warrior-with-a-chalice-in-his-hands-by-guercino.jpg&sp=ec628b97ae2c59e1323d01e70aaa25c6)
.
The early Church fathers would have drawn pictures like this but they didn't know how to draw spheres yet in those days.
.
Duuuh.
.
-
The Church has always used images to help the less learned understand.
Stories in buildings and stories in books.
-
Spheres in art are a representation of the sphere of creation. Not the sphere of the earth. There is a difference.
-
No reason the artist couldn't have depicted Our Lord holding yer pizza-planet, huh?
-
The Church has always used images to help the less learned understand.
If the orb in the Christ Child's hand is merely the earth, then Christ is not represented as God of all. In fact, the orb in Christ's hands is the entirety of creation: heaven is the upper portion (firmament) of the globe, earth is the plane center, and hell is the pit that forms the bottom portion. Holding all creation in his hand, Jesus shows Himself God of all creation. So, indeed, traditional images do reveal a lot about the truths of the Faith and support them. Newer pictures not so much.
-
If the orb in the Christ Child's hand is merely the earth, then Christ is not represented as God of all. In fact, the orb in Christ's hands is the entirety of creation: heaven is the upper portion (firmament) of the globe, earth is the plane center, and hell is the pit that forms the bottom portion. Holding all creation in his hand, Jesus shows Himself God of all creation. So, indeed, traditional images do reveal a lot about the truths of the Faith and support them. Newer pictures not so much.
Oh I see! That explains it all!
Creation is just like a snow-globe, of course!
And I though the powers of abstraction were a benefit to the rational mind, but perish the very idea..
Sorry, you people are a real special kind of ______
-
Oh I see! That explains it all!
Creation is just like a snow-globe, of course!
And I though the powers of abstraction were a benefit to the rational mind, but perish the very idea..
Sorry, you people are a real special kind of ______
Your answer is at odds with Church Fathers, scripture, saints, popes and the Church's position on the subject. The Church condemned heliocentrism officially in 1633. No saint supports the global theory, although some adopted it passively. Below are some of the saints and their angle on some aspect of the flat earth:
•St. John Chrysostom (considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture. Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons. For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27] Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2] He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings – happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”
•In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day. …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.” [77], [78] He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful.” He then calls Pythagoras a “barbarian”!
•Chrysostom was “definitely a strong fundamentalist if not an absolute Biblical literalist and he certainly seems to have believed the earth was flat. Like Tertullian, he was skeptical of any ‘pagan’ knowledge which seemed to cast doubt on any aspect of the Bible.
Methodius:
“Resuming then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For *they* say that the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well‐rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its outline being spherical, it is necessary, *they* say, since there are the same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the center of the universe, around which as being older, the heaven is whirling. For if a circuмference is described from the central point, which seems to be a circle, ‐ for it is impossible for a circle to be described without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a point, ‐ surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a state of chaos and disorganization. Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God…
•St. Cyril of Jerusalem – He followed Basil’s teaching and was a flat earther, using quotes from the Bible portraying earth with firmament floating on water using Gen. i. 6. He wrote in his Catechetical Lectures: Lecture IX: “Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire: and how do the orbs of fire run their course in the water? But if any one disputes this because of the opposite natures of fire and water, let him remember the fire which in the time of Moses in Egypt flamed amid the hail…”
•St. John Chrysostom (considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture. Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons. For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27] Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2] He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings – happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”
•In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day. …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.” [77], [78] He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful.” He then calls Pythagoras a “barbarian”!
•The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.
•pg 104 War Between Science and Theology…White
•Alexander VII wrote one of the most authoritative docuмents related to the heliocentrism issue. He published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which presented anew the contents of the Index of Forbidden Books which had condemned the works of Copernicus and Galileo. According to Rev. William Roberts, he prefaced this with the bull Speculatores Domus Israel, stating his reasons: "in order that the whole history of each case may be known." 'For this purpose,' the Pontiff stated, 'we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted."[33] Among those included were the previous decrees placing various heliocentric works on the Index ("...which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein...") and using his Apostolic authority he bound the faithful to its contents ("...and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience...")[34] Thus, Alexander turned definitively against the heliocentric view of the solar system.
The Church teaches officially that there are no antipodes and that Jerusalem is in the middle of the earth:
•The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as the direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
Cosmas (Christian Topography) explains:
•What then can be more absurd than the Pagan doctrine that the earth is in the |xvii middle of the universe? Here then the Pagans are at war with divine Scripture; but, not content with this, they are at war also with common sense itself and the very laws of nature, declaring, as they do, that the earth is a central sphere, and that there are Antipodes, who must be standing head-downward and on whom the rain must fall up. --Introduction, Christian Topography, Cosmas Indiocopleustes 550 AD
This is a small portion of the Catholic position that always sided with the geocentric flat earth against the pagan philosophies of a globe earth.
Anne Catherine Emmerich shows this pagan lie came about in Enoch's day with the worship of Satan:
Anne Catherine weighs in with information on the beginnings of heliocentrism:
•(Hom) was of a large stature like a giant, and of a very serious, peculiar turn of mind. He wore a long robe, he was like a priest. He used to go alone to the summit of the mountain and there spend night after night. He observed the stars and practiced magic. He was taught by the devil to arrange what he saw in vision into a science, a religion, and thereby he vitiated and counteracted the teaching of Enoch. The evil inclinations inherited from his mother mingled in him with the pure hereditary teachings of Enoch and Noe to which the children Thubal clung. Hom, by his false visions and revelations misinterpreted and changed the ancient truth. He studied and pondered and watched the stars and had visions which, by Satan's agency, showed him deformed images of truth. Through their resemblance to truth, his doctrine and idolatry became the mothers of heresy. Page 48 The Life of Jesus Christ
-
This model of earth is found (in black and white) and was often depicted in many bibles, supporting Genesis' description of creation.
-
Oh I see! That explains it all!
Creation is just like a snow-globe, of course!
.
Of course, creation is like a snow-globe. Simple-minded imagery for simple-minded people, I guess.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fa0%2F11%2F9d%2Fa0119d1befa6650b937f1bc378bdb836.jpg&sp=6d01bb902deb85beaeeb689a511a8a92)
.
Could be a great boon for Christmas marketing schemes!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvN4Xeb4CI
.
-
.
Curiously, it's not authentic because they forgot to include the "windows" in the "firmament."
.
-
.
Curiously, it's not authentic because they forgot to include the "windows" in the "firmament."
.
This your proof earth is a globe?
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :applause:
-
This your proof earth is a globe?
.
This is your proof NASA is all fake and the earth is flat --- the photo NASA doesn't want you to see!!!
.
(http://i.imgur.com/2G72V8u.jpg)
-
.
This is your proof NASA is all fake and the earth is flat --- the photo NASA doesn't want you to see!!!
.
(http://i.imgur.com/2G72V8u.jpg)
A picture proves nothing. Catholic teaching, scripture, and scientific empirical proof shows that the surface of large amounts of water do not curve, that curvature of earth has never been demonstrated or proven, and that NASA, the spokesman for globalism lies using bought scientists and cgi to say earth is a ball and jets through space 4 different directions at 4 different speeds all at the same time. Given the evidence without prejudice, most Catholics would toss such junk theory into the 'round' file.
-
A picture proves nothing. Catholic teaching, scripture, and scientific empirical proof shows that the surface of large amounts of water do not curve, that curvature of earth has never been demonstrated or proven
.
It has never been a Catholic teaching that the earth is "flat." Urban legend does not qualify as Church teaching.
.
The use of your eyes, looking at the phases of the moon, and thus by empirical scientific observation, you always find the earth to be spherical. Always. The only way you can empirically resolve the phases of the moon is by realizing your point of observation must be by various points on the surface of a spherical earth.
.
That is what empirical means.
.
You like to throw "empirical" around as if it's a party favor but you have no idea what you're talking about.
.
Are you converting to Moslem? Moslems believe the earth is "flat," like Mohammed did.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
-
If Muslims believe the earth is flat, that's great for them.
Cultures all over the world believed the earth was flat including the Eygptians and Bablyonians.
Trying to claim that the Jєωs were any different is ridiculous.
-
.
It has never been a Catholic teaching that the earth is "flat." Urban legend does not qualify as Church teaching.
.
The use of your eyes, looking at the phases of the moon, and thus by empirical scientific observation, you always find the earth to be spherical. Always. The only way you can empirically resolve the phases of the moon is by realizing your point of observation must be by various points on the surface of a spherical earth.
.
That is what empirical means.
.
You like to throw "empirical" around as if it's a party favor but you have no idea what you're talking about.
.
Are you converting to Moslem? Moslems believe the earth is "flat," like Mohammed did.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
Indeed, it is a fact the Church condemned the ball earth heliocentric theory and away held that there is a dome over the earth. You can't have a dome over a ball. And further, you cannot prove the Church, scripture or science has proof of global earth. Such a notion is fantasy impossible to reconcile with reality. The conclusion is drawn for fe, but cannot be so for a globe.
-
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon to see the earth is a globe.
.
Simple.
.
But not for Moslems who believe that everything worth knowing is found in the Quran.
.
Are you a Moslem, pretending not to be one? That's got a name, too, for Moslems.
.
-
You can't have a dome over a ball.
.
You never learn, do you. I already instructed you from the Haydock notes of the Bible but you've already forgotten.
.
-
.
You never learn, do you. I already instructed you from the Haydock notes of the Bible but you've already forgotten.
.
Try not to be so patronising. It is not doing your globalist agenda much good.
-
.
You never learn, do you. I already instructed you from the Haydock notes of the Bible but you've already forgotten.
.
Show me a dome over a globe or you'll have to admit it's you that never learns.
-
Oh I see! That explains it all!
Creation is just like a snow-globe, of course!
And I though the powers of abstraction were a benefit to the rational mind, but perish the very idea..
Sorry, you people are a real special kind of ______
Yes, it sounds like you need to read Genesis.
-
On the contrary, if he [Vergilius] was in fact the future Archbishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm) of Salzburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13411b.htm), it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by "other men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)" he did not understand a race of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) not descended from Adam (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm) and redeemed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm) by the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15743b.htm) to be "perverse" and "contrary to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm)".
Your "natural conclusion" from reading that is strictly your OWN conclusion, Cassini.
I don't get that from reading it at all. Seems pretty clear to me Vergilius was being censured for believing the earth to be a globe.
-
Just to announce that we have just published an introductory video to the flat earth.
Flat Earth Trads are a group of resistance flat earthers.
We hope you enjoy this video and that it answers your questions.
Please forward to anyone interested and make comments.
Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/cGtB-TapXDc
While I am a Catholic flat earther, I do not believe every thing in this video. I do not believe astronots are "hypnotized." Freemason, yes, hypnotized, no.
I know someone in the current astronot class and he is definitely not hypnotized. Whether or not he ever makes it to "space" remains to be seen.
-
Show me a dome over a globe or you'll have to admit it's you that never learns.
.
Jumping topic again?
.
Why am I surprised?
.
The Scripture referred to says nothing about "a dome" but it tells you what "a firmament" means.
.
Will you learn or will you not learn? That's up to you, as usual. Or you can jump topic, again, as usual, like a Protestant.
.
-
.
Jumping topic again?
.
Why am I surprised?
.
The Scripture referred to says nothing about "a dome" but it tells you what "a firmament" means.
.
Will you learn or will you not learn? That's up to you, as usual. Or you can jump topic, again, as usual, like a Protestant.
.
Scripture doesn't use the word dome, but the use of the word is common, as is "roof" and the descriptions of the firmament are consistent as writings of Church Fathers show here:
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as "bad and senseless," and opposed the doctrine of the earth's sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephrem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the "lute of the Holy Ghost," opposed it no less earnestly.
But the strictly Biblical men of science, such eminent fathers and bishops as Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, Clement of Alexandria in the third, and others in centuries following, were not content with merely opposing what they stigmatized as an old heathen theory; they drew from their Bibles a new Christian theory, to which one church authority added one idea and another another, until it was fully developed. Taking the survival of various early traditions, given in the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, they dwelt on the scriptural declaration that the earth was, at creation, arched over with a solid vault, "a firmament," and to this they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in." The universe, then, is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day, and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament."
These waters are let down upon the earth by the Almighty and his angels through the "windows of heaven." As to the movement of the sun, there was a citation of various passages in Genesis, mixed with metaphysics in various proportions, and this was thought to give ample proofs from the Bible that the earth could not be a sphere.[1] (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_41.djvu/464#cite_note-1)
For Eusebius, see the Prcep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the Hexameron, Horn, ix, cited in Peschel, Erdkunde, p. 96, note. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap. 3; also, citations in Whewell, Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 185*7, vol. i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217. For the views of St. John Chrysostom Eph. Syrus, and other great churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap. i.
The scholars of the Ethiopian Church as well as the Syrian (Thomist) Churches of southern India all highly respect 'The Christian Topography' of Cosmas Indicoplustes and consider the book an accurate historical docuмent which is vital to the history of the Church in those countries at the time when Cosmas wrote at the beginning of the Middle Ages
A massive and exhaustively informative book on Saint Thomas the Apostle and the exhaustive history and heritage (and archaeology, relics, ancient churches, et cetera) of all the Thomistic churches in southern India of all denominations which is published by the Roman Catholic church there is entitled the 'Thomapedia.' The Thomapedia does not fail to make prominent mention of Cosmas Indicopleustes for the vital historical information he provides of Christians in India during the early Middle Ages.
Western scholars familiar with Cosmas Indicopleustes praise him for the accurate and invaluable historical information contained in the 'Christian Topography.' He is widely reckoned as the chief source of information on travel in the Indian Ocean and specifically Ethiopia and southern India at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
Virtually any Ethiopian book covering the country's Christian history with significant information on the early medieval period also mentions Cosmas Indicopleustes as the most authoritative non-Ethiopian writer to describe Ethiopia at that time.
"...Cosmas Indicopleustes, travelled in this region and wrote his 'Christian Topography,' expressing in an entire book the vision of the entire Cosmos as expressed in the Book of Genesis, and as a counterblast to the pagan Greek view of the universe as spherical; he also presented Moses prefiguring Christ. Thus Moses experiences a strong resurgence in this century not only as Lawgiver, the model of Justinian, but also and more relevantly as a Cosmographer. What is even more relevant to the theme of this paper is that his (Moses's) conception of the universe as interpreted by Cosmas was also expressed in maps, some drawn by Cosmas himself and some by others whom Cosmas employed.
Cosmas Indicopleustes is that ancient Christian cartographer who drew up the oldest known Christian maps. These and their successors depict Jerusalem as the Navel of the Earth, the literal centre of the Earth. The city of Jerusalem is located at the geographical centre of the Earth. The city lies at the crossroads of Sem (Asia), Ham (Africa), and Japheth (Europe). Biblical, Christian, and Hebrew tradition unanimously state that Jerusalem is the Navel of the Earth and place the city at the geographical centre of the Cosmos. Strictly speaking, the geographical centre of the Earth is marked by an Omophoron on the floor of the Katholikon of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
The oldest acknowledged extant map of Jerusalem is a Byzantine mosaic Map of the Holy Land on the floor of the Katholikon of the sixth century Byzantine Church of Saint George in Madaba, Jordan. This is the famous Madaba map of Jerusalem unearthed in the Year of the Lord 1884, but not made famous until the librarian of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem visited Madaba to assess the map in 1897 and recognized the significance of this OLDEST MAP OF JERUSALEM IN THE WORLD. The centre of the Map depicts the city of Jerusalem with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the middle of the city. Consistent with the Flat Earth cosmography of the Church Fathers and Cosmas Indicopleustes, the eastern part of the map depicts the Four Rivers of Paradise which flow westward from the Garden of Eden into this world. One can discern the rivers' names like Pyson which are labelled in the Mosaic. The representation of the Four Rivers of Paradise in the Madaba Map is no different from their representation in the flat Earth world map of Cosmas Indicopleustes.
"Having learned, moreover, from Moses that the earth has been extended in length more than in breadth, we again admit this, knowing that the scriptures, which are truly divine, ought to be believed. But further, when God had produced the waters and angels and other things simultaneously with the earth and the highest heaven itself, he on the second day exposed to their vision this second heaven visible to our eyes, which, as if putting to use the creations of his own hands, he formed from the waters as his material. In appearance it is like the highest heaven, but not in figure, and it lies midway between that heaven and the earth; and God [130] having then stretched it out extended it throughout the whole space in the direction of its breadth, like an intermediate roof, and bound together the firmament with the highest heaven, separating and disparting the remainder of the waters, leaving some above the firmament, and others on the earth below the firmament, as the divine Moses explains to us, and so makes the one area or house two houses----an upper and a lower story."
From 'Christian Topography'
Lets see... Catholic teaching on the hard firmament/dome/roof and flat earth by Moses, Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Ephrem Syrus, Lactantius, Cosmas and St. Chrysostom in these paragraphs alone. This is a fraction of teachings on the literal interpretation of Genesis for the firmament which separates the upper waters from water on earth, and the flat earth against spherical earth. What traditional/ancient Father, saint or Catholic teaching do you have to prove earth is a sphere, Neil?
-
While I am a Catholic flat earther, I do not believe every thing in this video. I do not believe astronots are "hypnotized." Freemason, yes, hypnotized, no.
I know someone in the current astronot class and he is definitely not hypnotized. Whether or not he ever makes it to "space" remains to be seen.
Hey tradplorable,
There is no reason why they can't be both masons and hypnotised. When you think about it, you are not going to let someone hypnotise you without trusting them.
So they take them in (their brother mason), hypnotise them telling them it is for their nerves or some other excuse, right before the launch. Then off they go into "outer space". Thinking the whole time they are there when they never budge from the studio or the aircraft they are on.
If you have ever seen people who are hypnotised they can be made do the stupidest things, and be made to have a selective memory of the events afterwards.
-
Hey tradplorable,
There is no reason why they can't be both masons and hypnotised. When you think about it, you are not going to let someone hypnotise you without trusting them.
So they take them in (their brother mason), hypnotise them telling them it is for their nerves or some other excuse, right before the launch. Then off they go into "outer space". Thinking the whole time they are there when they never budge from the studio or the aircraft they are on.
If you have ever seen people who are hypnotised they can be made do the stupidest things, and be made to have a selective memory of the events afterwards.
Yes, I get what you are "suggesting" (pun, intended) I just don't agree.
I think if one is trying to demonstrate the truth of the flat earth, one needs to stick to what can be proven. The subject of flat earth is in itself controversial enough to make it very easy for one to lose one's credibility without having to speculate about things that cannot be proven.
Because I can prove that the astronots were not hypnotized and knew exactly what they were doing when they lied about going to the moon.
I can SHOW that to anyone willing to watch:
At the 2:45 mark.
https://youtu.be/lmnMJoFQHk0
-
These 2 posts of cassini were well placed and appreciated:
.
.
Again I find defence of flat-earthism sinks to the ridiculous, resorting to any rejection tactic that you can think up. His [Cassini's] geocentrism was certainly Church teaching. There is no other Church teaching on the subject matter than that.
Cassini was a devout Catholic astronomer and surveyor who was hated by the antichrist Voltaire for his discoveries that falsified Newton's heliocentrism.
He was an astronomer and surveyor. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Domenico Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States.
As an astronomer he was the greatest that ever lived. His work and reputation, because it falsified heliocentric astronomy and physics has been hidden for centuries.
.
My my, the tactics of you global earthers are getting as near to blasphemy as you can get. Totally unable to reply to the anti-flat-earth science offered by me and others earlier, you simply ignore it and and push the ridiculous notion that flat-earthism is upheld by the Catholic faith. It is not and to say so brings the Catholic faith into dispute.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." --- St Augustine.
There are many readers of this forum, I am sure, who, upon reading this flat-earthism, a position CONTRARY to the sciences and human reasoning, who must laugh at what some Catholics believe in, bring the faith down to the level of a idiotic belief. This is exactly what is happening since this flat-earthism arrived on this and other Catholic forums. Just read through a few of them and you can see the HARM it is having among Catholics.
It is patently obvious you avoid answering the scientific arguments and the conspiracy theories you say is ongoing among thousands and thousands of people and institutions that are beyond belief. The idea that no aeroplane has ever flown over the 'edge' of your flat earth, which would have happened if it were true, is another joke. Next you will be saying aeroplanes are like rockets and satellites, fiction.
Here above you are defending your right to post your position. Fair enough. But posting a position requires that you defend it against objections put up by those opposed to the assertions made in the opening post and those that follow. I posted serious scientific reasons why flat-earthism is not true science. For one that six-mile 'proof' that the earth is not curved is a joke as the curve can only be detected scientifically over a few thousand miles. Yet you simply ignore or dismiss the arguments hoping the 'Catholic faith' of your victims will suffice. Such an abuse of the Catholic faith in my eyes is a sin against that faith.
Totally unable to reply to the anti-flat-earth science offered by me and others earlier, you simply ignore it and and push the ridiculous notion that flat-earthism is upheld by the Catholic faith. It is not and to say so brings the Catholic faith into dispute.
.
There are many readers of this forum, I am sure, who, upon reading this flat-earthism, a position CONTRARY to the sciences and human reasoning, who must laugh at what some Catholics believe in, bring the faith down to the level of a idiotic belief.
.
-
Catholic intro video to Flat Earth
It just doesn't die. :facepalm:
-
It just doesn't die. :facepalm:
.
It's like the song that never ends
And it goes on and on, my friends
Someone started singing it not knowing what it was
They'll continue singing it forever just because
It's like the song that never ends
And it goes on and on, my friends ...
-
.
Here is yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Not to mention the fact that the clown :jester: who started this thread, flatearthtards, has disappeared, having given up the fight over a month ago after seeing overwhelming opposition to his OP posted here.
.
Then this laughable "kiwiboy" thinks he's got all the answers but it's a litany of errors!!!
.
Thanks for your objectivity.
What is going on here is that the globalist Neil and his other alias JohnAnthonyMarie, are annoyed by this video because it presents an accurate and brief synopsis for the flat earth argument from a Catholic perspective. It is what a lot of people have been looking for.
.
No, JohnAnthonyMarie is no alias, and this stupid video is nothing "accurate" from a Catholic perspective. It's entirely Modernist and subjective with no proof whatsoever, based on falsehood, half-truths and fabrications. Anyone looking for patent garbage like this doesn't know which way is UP. (Flat-earthers are very confused about what "up" means.)
.
This is why Neil is trying to promote his other thread, which puts us on the the defensive and pushes down this thread down the ranks.
.
So I've tried to push this stupid thread down the ranks, have I? Why would I want to see a stupid thread disappear when it's a very good proof of how ridiculous is the flat-earthism it pretends to uphold?
.
But he won't stop there. Next will come incessant pms to Matthew. If they haven't started already, they will, don't worry.
.
Wrong again! I have not sent any PMs to Matthew or anyone else regarding silly flat-earthism and/or kiwiboy (who needs no help making a fool of himself).
.
1st Mansion tenant started the ball rolling on it with her " talked to another person" line. Classic revolutionary tactics, which is all about generating an illusion of support to create pressure.
.
1st Mansion tenant defended her post just fine against your nonsense and flaccid failure at impugning her intentions. The fact that you gave up on attacking her is proof of the effectiveness of her defense.
.
From their perspective it is perfectly logical. They have to suppress this topic because it embarrasses them. They don't want to have to face up to the reality.
But as Matthew the admin has said already; what have they got to fear? They have the whole world with them anyway.
I think that honest people who are not even flat earthers can judge fruits here.
.
I'm not suppressing this topic. Much to LaramieHirsch's dismay (see above).
.
Nobody has to suppress this topic. If it's an embarrassment to anyone it's so to YOU. it's YOU who refuses to face up to reality. YOU are the ones who refuse to step outside and observe what the phases of the moon tell you every day of the year and from every position of the globe. (As in globe earth.)
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism are on every page here.
.
-
.
Here is yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Not to mention the fact that the clown :jester: who started this thread, flatearthtards, has disappeared, having given up the fight over a month ago after seeing overwhelming opposition to his OP posted here.
.
Then this laughable "kiwiboy" thinks he's got all the answers but it's a litany of errors!!!
..
No, JohnAnthonyMarie is no alias, and this stupid video is nothing "accurate" from a Catholic perspective. It's entirely Modernist and subjective with no proof whatsoever, based on falsehood, half-truths and fabrications. Anyone looking for patent garbage like this doesn't know which way is UP. (Flat-earthers are very confused about what "up" means.)
..
So I've tried to push this stupid thread down the ranks, have I? Why would I want to see a stupid thread disappear when it's a very good proof of how ridiculous is the flat-earthism it pretends to uphold?
..
Wrong again! I have not sent any PMs to Matthew or anyone else regarding silly flat-earthism and/or kiwiboy (who needs no help making a fool of himself).
..
1st Mansion tenant defended her post just fine against your nonsense and flaccid failure at impugning her intentions. The fact that you gave up on attacking her is proof of the effectiveness of her defense.
..
I'm not suppressing this topic. Much to LaramieHirsch's dismay (see above).
.
Nobody has to suppress this topic. If it's an embarrassment to anyone it's so to YOU. it's YOU who refuses to face up to reality. YOU are the ones who refuse to step outside and observe what the phases of the moon tell you every day of the year and from every position of the globe. (As in globe earth.)
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism are on every page here.
.
Defying Catholic teaching is the embarrassment for you. Still waiting for Catholic teaching earth is a globe. And proof that saints, Popes, scripture and the Church are mistaken.
-
.
And yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Flat-earthers defy Catholic teaching every time they post more of their nonsense.
.
Wake up to the reality that Catholics believe the truth God puts before us, not the drivel that flat-earthers like to shovel out with the horse manure they live in.
.
-
Flat-earthers defy Catholic teaching every time they post more of their nonsense.
What Catholic teaching is defied by flat-earthers? Please be specific.
-
.
And yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Flat-earthers defy Catholic teaching every time they post more of their nonsense.
.
Wake up to the reality that Catholics believe the truth God puts before us, not the drivel that flat-earthers like to shovel out with the horse manure they live in.
.
:laugh2: At least Neil is great entertainment.
-
.
Here is yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Not to mention the fact that the clown :jester: who started this thread, flatearthtards, has disappeared, having given up the fight over a month ago after seeing overwhelming opposition to his OP posted here.
.
Then this laughable "kiwiboy" thinks he's got all the answers but it's a litany of errors!!!
..
No, JohnAnthonyMarie is no alias, and this stupid video is nothing "accurate" from a Catholic perspective. It's entirely Modernist and subjective with no proof whatsoever, based on falsehood, half-truths and fabrications. Anyone looking for patent garbage like this doesn't know which way is UP. (Flat-earthers are very confused about what "up" means.)
..
So I've tried to push this stupid thread down the ranks, have I? Why would I want to see a stupid thread disappear when it's a very good proof of how ridiculous is the flat-earthism it pretends to uphold?
..
Wrong again! I have not sent any PMs to Matthew or anyone else regarding silly flat-earthism and/or kiwiboy (who needs no help making a fool of himself).
..
1st Mansion tenant defended her post just fine against your nonsense and flaccid failure at impugning her intentions. The fact that you gave up on attacking her is proof of the effectiveness of her defense.
..
I'm not suppressing this topic. Much to LaramieHirsch's dismay (see above).
.
Nobody has to suppress this topic. If it's an embarrassment to anyone it's so to YOU. it's YOU who refuses to face up to reality. YOU are the ones who refuse to step outside and observe what the phases of the moon tell you every day of the year and from every position of the globe. (As in globe earth.)
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism are on every page here.
.
Sounds like that is some pretty good whiskey you are taking at the moment!
-
.
And yet another example of how wrong flat-earthers can be!
.
Flat-earthers defy Catholic teaching every time they post more of their nonsense.
.
Wake up to the reality that Catholics believe the truth God puts before us, not the drivel that flat-earthers like to shovel out with the horse manure they live in.
.
Which Catholic teaching is that, Neil?
-
:laugh2: At least Neil is great entertainment.
And the perfect foil for flat earth. Thanks Neil!
-
And the perfect foil for flat earth. Thanks Neil!
Could Neil be one of the four pillars' holding up the flat earth and he just doesn't know it yet?
-
Defying Catholic teaching is the embarrassment for you. Still waiting for Catholic teaching earth is a globe. And proof that saints, Popes, scripture and the Church are mistaken.
.
"All NASA images are cgi. Not one of hundreds of pictures are real."
.
So say the flat-earthers, while showing us the same one cgi image of a flat earth hundreds of times.
.
At the funny farm with egg on your face
You can say that you're Chevy Chase.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F34%2FFunny_farm_%2528film_poster%2529.jpg&sp=c5159d2149240030c6090f755b880d41)
-
Longest. Intro. Ever.
-
.
What a Flat-Earter Looks Like When He Tries to Think
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs28.postimg.org%2Fkcjq7ks99%2Frapper_bob_flat_earth.jpg&sp=ff99b52244f0b1283fa8f939a56e0af6)
.
However, actually THINKING is another story!
.
-
Wow!
With all these posts on the flat earth, you really must be getting paid a lot by your NASA employers. Do you have a monthly perfomance review on it?
-
It's not really that impressive considering the ancient greeks had pretty advanced maths.
I need to explain to the honest people reading this though how this does not prove the round earth. Calculating the circuмference of the flat earth is possible because the sun has a fixed radius over 24 hours, going OVER the earth.
If you impose spherical trigonometry on top of this you come up with a RADIUS of and imaginary globe earth, mentioned above. But this is total fantasy. It presumes the earth is a globe. It is just turning numbers into other numbers by putting them into equations. It doesn't bear any relation to reality.
I am happy in a way that you brought this up, because it gives another occasion for the truth to shine even brighter.
.
Now THERE'S a great example of flat-earth competence...... NOT.
.
I'd ask you for an intelligible translation but there isn't one. You have no idea what you're talking about, is the bottom line.
.
More Bad Fruit of the Flat-Earth Position.
.
-
Defying Catholic teaching is the embarrassment for you. Still waiting for Catholic teaching earth is a globe. And proof that saints, Popes, scripture and the Church are mistaken.
.
I'm not embarrassed, but you are because you can't find the texts I told you about. I already told you where to find it. You're so swift, go get it yourself. Oh, right, you can't do anything on your OWN, you have to ask the flat-earth-tards what to do, and they have no idea where to find stuff they can't use to promote their deception. Thanks for the scoop.
.
Got it!
.
-
There is an important point to make about the teaching of the church.
The question about the flatness of the earth is only one aspect of the creation of God. That being the aspects of creation which are permanent; earth, sun, moon, stars.
What we know for certain is that the Church said in the condemnation of Galileo that anyone who says that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not go around it, is suspect of heresy. Cardinal Bellarmine was of the opinion that this was de fide. (http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition)
Added to this, the Fathers of the Church attacked in the strongest terms, the idea that the earth was a globe.
But we do not have clear statements that the earth part of creation is generally flat. Why? Because it is not necessary when you add up the above, (as well as opinions by Fathers that the firmament was solid). It is a way of putting it that no one bothered to do.
So Neils quest is a red herring finally. Let he who has ears listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtB-TapXDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS_GyIlqr-w
-
.
I'm not embarrassed, but you are because you can't find the texts I told you about. I already told you where to find it. You're so swift, go get it yourself. Oh, right, you can't do anything on your OWN, you have to ask the flat-earth-tards what to do, and they have no idea where to find stuff they can't use to promote their deception. Thanks for the scoop.
.
I've provided Catholic teachings and you provided nothing Catholic in favor of the pagan model at odds with scripture and reason. But naturally. You can't.
-
I've provided Catholic teachings and you provided nothing Catholic in favor of the pagan model at odds with scripture and reason. But naturally. You can't.
What happens if Neil's Pagan model is not at odds with his Pagan mind?
-
What happens if Neil's Pagan model is not at odds with his Pagan mind?
Clearly, Neil suffers from pagan indoctrination. He refuses to consider seriously conclusive science, associated math, measurements, scripture, Popes, bishops, Fathers and saints' statements, but also furthers the ridiculous notion that people and things can stick to the outside of a sphere, spinning or not. Especially when no curvature can be demonstrated. Spherical earth is without doubt a religion which necessarily must be accepted on faith alone.
-
I've provided Catholic teachings and you provided nothing Catholic in favor of the pagan model at odds with scripture and reason. But naturally. You can't.
.
I know, you're just upset because you wish the Church would teach your pet fairy tale and it just won't. :baby:
.
So sad.
.
You can't give your answer to my question because there is no answer to my question.
.
-
Ignoring posts that don't suit your argument Neil? Not a surprise.
Here is the video that Neil still hasn't explained:
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
-
Here is the video that Neil still hasn't explained:
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
Neil "Have You Measured the Angle of the Quarter Moon Yet" Obstat is not about to give you an explanation.
-
I did the math on that video like 6 threads ago. It matches the expected curvature of the earth.
-
.
I can't understand why flat-earthers aren't all over the fake news depictions of planet earth.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weathernationtv.com%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2Fharvey-728x408.jpg&sp=08523dc14726a0986f1d0ac3210d3ff0)
.
Can you even IMAGINE the nerve?
.
Making up this fake picture of an earth that isn't flat, just to hide the truth?
.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that we're being lied to?
.
There must be millions of deceivers working day and night to keep the truth from going public.
.
And using the tragedy of a killer hurricane to promote their deception--how unconscionable.
.
-
.
I can't understand why flat-earthers aren't all over the fake news depictions of planet earth.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weathernationtv.com%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2Fharvey-728x408.jpg&sp=08523dc14726a0986f1d0ac3210d3ff0)
.
Can you even IMAGINE the nerve?
.
Making up this fake picture of an earth that isn't flat, just to hide the truth?
.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that we're being lied to?
.
There must be millions of deceivers working day and night to keep the truth from going public.
.
And using the tragedy of a killer hurricane to promote their deception--how unconscionable.
.
You are the one trying to pawn off globe earth deception CGIS' as if they are pictures.
-
I did the math on that video like 6 threads ago. It matches the expected curvature of the earth.
"Sorcery!"
-
I did the math on that video like 6 threads ago. It matches the expected curvature of the earth.
:) that's a great! Certainly a first for me.
So you won't mind sharing that math with us then?
-
Apparently you have not read the quote from St. Basil the Great.
St. Basil, Hexaemeron, Homily 9: Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; [1693] all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.
You can knock off all of that Scripture, Pope, bishops, fathers and Saints business. The point is maybe they held the opinion but that doesn't mean anything to us as Catholics. This topic has absolutely no religious significance at all except maybe to distract from the True one.
God would not have created the Flat Earth if it didn't matter. You are still here.
-
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
What is shining on the top of the dome to make that highlight sparkle?
.
-
Ignoring posts that don't suit your argument Neil? Not a surprise.
Here is the video that Neil still hasn't explained:
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
.
I have already gone through that video in great detail but you're not paying attention.
.
If you won't read what I post why should I keep repeating myself?
.
As I said 3 weeks ago, about my post 3 months ago:
.
I did reply to questions about this video, with the people walking down the stairs and the measurement from Miramar Beach to Anacapa island.
.
At the start, it begins with a very important inaccuracy, where it has the Camera Height at 3 feet. This is obviously false. You can easily see that the camera is on the sandy beach with rocky pebbles, high above the surf line. The camera might be 3 feet above the sand, but that place on the sand is at least 8 feet above the water level of the ocean, so the camera height is more like 11 feet, not 3 feet.
.
For the next 2 minutes, the video uses this fake beginning as a basis for drawing conclusions, but they're all fake because it started with a wrong elevation.
.
At minute 2 he could easily have had a helper hold a long stick vertically standing at the water's edge (in surveying it's called a Philadelphia Rod - see insert pic) going up to the line of the horizon, and then go measure how high that is (or read the markings on the rod). He doesn't do that because it would show that the camera's height is much greater than the 3 feet that he erroneously claims it is.
.
At 2:47, without explaining what's going on, he suddenly shows footage shot from the top of a hill somewhere and has, "I will compare with this image from 560 ft elevation view." Pause the video at minute 3:00 and pay close attention to the low point of the island on the right side, between West Anacapa and Middle Anacapa. You can clearly see the land of the islands coming to a low point and briefly touching the water line, which is the small channel between the two islands. This is the portion of the shot that he eliminates in a few seconds by scrolling up...
.
Then, to compound his error, at minute 3:13 you can see how he scrolls up the picture to eliminate the lower portion of his view, cutting off the bottom part of the island that you could easily see a few seconds before, and he pretends that's the water line viewed from a higher elevation at the beach. But it's not. It is his cropped picture that cuts off the part you could see plainly a few seconds before, at 3:00. Then the cropped picture wiggles up and down for all to see, and at at 3:32 he labels his arbitrary image "View from 560 ft. elevation" when it's not that at all. He just isn't showing the bottom 300 feet of the island!! He has falsified his own view to make it appear to support his bias. It's so obviously a deliberate distortion.
.
Then he says, "LET'S TRY SEA LEVEL" at 3:40, and starts walking down to the water's edge. At 3:57 (pause it to see) halfway down to the water, the top of a surfer's head is touching the horizon line at the distant island's base. That is the point at which the camera is 5 feet above the water, because the surfer's head is 5 feet above the water's surface -- he is standing on his surfboard with his feet at the water's level and he's about 5 feet tall.
.
At 4:03 he puts his camera down on the sand and you can easily see how the standing surfer out in the water is now with his head up against the sky. The surfer did not rise up, but the camera did lower down, and this lower angle of view changes the appearance of the surfer against the water. You can't see the water surface anymore because it's hidden by the breaking waves.
.
Then at 4:15 the same surfer is shown falling off his surfboard, so you know it's not fake. This is real footage, which is nice to see.
.
At 4:29 the wave washes up toward the camera and you can see the top of the water. The camera is obviously higher than the water's surface (mean sea level) or else you wouldn't be able to see the surface. The fact is, as the waves rush up the sand, the water moves uphill, and the furthest extent of the water's edge is ABOVE sea level by a few feet. This is always the case on the shoreline with breaking waves.
.
If he put his camera down at sea level it would get ruined by the water covering it up, and we wouldn't be seeing any picture at all. Like a periscope on a submarine that isn't quite out of the water yet or gets splashed by a wave.
.
All the way past minute 6 the camera shows views of the water's surface out to sea, proving that the camera is at 3' elevation, or even higher. But he pretends it's at 0, which is clearly false.
.
At 6:00 to 6:08 a surfer paddles past the camera's line of sight, with his head and body entirely below the water's surface in the distance. You would not be able to see that if the camera were at water level. The camera is above water level by at least 3 feet, perhaps 4 feet.
.
But you're not paying attention,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.
ANOTHER BAD FRUIT OF THE FLAT-EARTH POSITION: THE INABILITY TO LEARN.
.
.
-
.
I have already gone through that video in great detail but you're not paying attention.
Neil "Have You Measured the Angle of the Quarter Moon Yet" Obstat tries to refute the video due to the camera being 3 feet off the ground when the *Horizon* (get it? horizontal) remains perfectly flat and level from any and all attainable altitudes.
-
.
I have already gone through that video in great detail but you're not paying attention.
.
If you won't read what I post why should I keep repeating myself?
.
As I said 3 weeks ago, about my post 3 months ago:
..
But you're not paying attention,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.
ANOTHER BAD FRUIT OF THE FLAT-EARTH POSITION: THE INABILITY TO LEARN.
.
.
My dear Neil,
For the sake of readers with little time, I will make things simple. But also because they are simple.
Even if we bring the camera up 11 feet as you claim, there is still about 500 feet which we can see and shouldn't see. All you can do is claim that the video is fake, with no reason for claiming so, other than you don't like the conclusions it makes.
I'm disappointed that this is the best you could do being in the paid employment of the North American Space Agency.
-
.
I have already gone through that video in great detail but you're not paying attention.
.
If you won't read what I post why should I keep repeating myself?
.
As I said 3 weeks ago, about my post 3 months ago:
..
But you're not paying attention,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.
ANOTHER BAD FRUIT OF THE FLAT-EARTH POSITION: THE INABILITY TO LEARN.
.
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
.
No, the horizon does not always appear flat all around the observer.
.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
.
No, the horizon does not rise to the eye level of the observer.
.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.
No, the natural physics of water is rather to conform to the contours of its container.
.
-
.
ANOTHER BAD FRUIT OF THE FLAT-EARTH POSITION:
THE INABILITY TO LEARN.
.
-
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
What is shining on the top of the dome to make that highlight sparkle?
.
.
What light source is shining on top of this "dome?"
.
-
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high.
P-brane does an excellent job of explaining how the vast plane of earth meets the eye of the observer, no matter the altitude.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
https://youtu.be/PzLMp5jGtHw
-
.
What light source is shining on top of this "dome?"
.
.
What is the light shining on top of that "dome?"
.
-
.
What is the light shining on top of that "dome?"
.
The light of Divinity.
-
The light of Divinity.
.
Better watch out for your light fixture of Divinity.............
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fb7%2F10%2F20%2Fb710207f1deec081d609945b6078b049--gary-larson-the-far-side.jpg&sp=82a473b675e2e0e2f828e66b1cbb1707)
.
-
.
What's really cute is how the "moon" is illuminated on the top, when the sun is over to the left.
.
And Australia is below the moon, so the guy looking up from Australia would see the dark side of the moon when it should be a full moon.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Then above the moon they've added little planets and even a nice galaxy for good measure. Neat, eh?
.
Flat-earthers can be very creative!!
.
-
.
What's really cute is how the "moon" is illuminated on the top, when the sun is over to the left.
.
And Australia is below the moon, so the guy looking up from Australia would see the dark side of the moon when it should be a full moon.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Then above the moon they've added little planets and even a nice galaxy for good measure. Neat, eh?
.
Flat-earthers can be very creative!!
.
God Created the Flat Earth; we don't take any credit for the Flat Earth.
-
.
What's wrong, Truth is Transitory, are you finding that a little disturbing?
.
If not, I'm sorry, I'll be sure to try harder, just for you. Ain't that special? ;)
.
-
God Created the Flat Earth; we don't take any credit for the Flat Earth.
.
God created the earth flat in your dreams, which you can't take credit for, obviously. HAHAHA
.
-
.
No, the horizon does not always appear flat all around the observer.
..
No, the horizon does not rise to the eye level of the observer.
..
No, the natural physics of water is rather to conform to the contours of its container.
.
Neil Obstinate and his argument, "no".
-
Neil Obstinate and his argument, "no".
:laugh1: good one.
Notice he cannot refute the P-brane videos?
-
:laugh1: good one.
Notice he cannot refute the P-brane videos?
Yep!
-
.
Flat-earthers yearn to identify with antiquity, and they imagine a certain popularity of their present kind of thinking long ago:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F16%2Fc2%2F18%2F16c218e94ad05fe0344e0d0b22355bfd--far-side-cartoons-cartoon-jokes.jpg&sp=53e7666f61f1bfe2033510f1c88b4a67)
.
-
.
Flat-earthers yearn to identify with antiquity, and they imagine a certain popularity of their present kind of thinking long ago:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F16%2Fc2%2F18%2F16c218e94ad05fe0344e0d0b22355bfd--far-side-cartoons-cartoon-jokes.jpg&sp=53e7666f61f1bfe2033510f1c88b4a67)
.
Eternal Flat Earth. ;D
-
Yep!
That is awesome.
-
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawstreetjournal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2FHurricane-Irma.jpg&sp=2bbe5d15ee7b558f46e5c1e95cd0f0af)
.
This is from rawstreetjournal.com (https://rawstreetjournal.com/hurricane-irma-getting-stronger-destroys-antigua-barbuda/), not a site that is known for going out of its way to falsify the images it publishes.
.
They did go to the trouble of outlining the land boundaries and coastlines so we can see better through the clouds.
.
But they didn't do anything with the horizon or the atmosphere. This must be really annoying for flat-earthers when they see it.
.
-
.
More telling photos from space -- the place flat-earthers claim doesn't exist!
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.3475278.1504742589%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Farticle_750%2Fstorm-irma.jpg&sp=30b353b1d061fd3f984464d08aaa3dd2)
.
This one shows Irma after passing Barbuda Sept. 7th, destroying the island's habitation.
.
-
.
More telling photos from space -- the place flat-earthers claim doesn't exist!
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.3475278.1504742589%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Farticle_750%2Fstorm-irma.jpg&sp=30b353b1d061fd3f984464d08aaa3dd2)
.
This one shows Irma after passing Barbuda Sept. 7th, destroying the island's habitation.
.
Neil is still trying to pass of his CGIS' as photographs.
-
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawstreetjournal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2FHurricane-Irma.jpg&sp=2bbe5d15ee7b558f46e5c1e95cd0f0af)
.
This is from rawstreetjournal.com (https://rawstreetjournal.com/hurricane-irma-getting-stronger-destroys-antigua-barbuda/), not a site that is known for going out of its way to falsify the images it publishes.
.
They did go to the trouble of outlining the land boundaries and coastlines so we can see better through the clouds.
.
But they didn't do anything with the horizon or the atmosphere. This must be really annoying for flat-earthers when they see it.
.
Neil is still trying to pass of his CGIS' as photographs.
-
.
More telling photos from space -- the place flat-earthers claim doesn't exist!
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.3475278.1504742589%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Farticle_750%2Fstorm-irma.jpg&sp=30b353b1d061fd3f984464d08aaa3dd2)
.
This one shows Irma after passing Barbuda Sept. 7th, destroying the island's habitation.
.
The fact that you believe these are genuine actual photos has me concerned for your mental health.
-
.
Feelings are mutual!
.
But before you go in for that operation, something to be aware of..............
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa0%2F0e%2F5d%2Fa00e5dbb60def00ba701ff8b0a963903--gary-larson-the-far-side.jpg&sp=d5a0822f4397a715930d98907d30c054)
.
I'm always amazed at the free exposure my pictures get -- all I have to do is post them once and they get re-posted several more times.
.
Then I don't have to repeat myself! ;)
.
-
.
Feelings are mutual!
.
But before you go in for that operation, something to be aware of..............
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa0%2F0e%2F5d%2Fa00e5dbb60def00ba701ff8b0a963903--gary-larson-the-far-side.jpg&sp=d5a0822f4397a715930d98907d30c054)
.
I'm always amazed at the free exposure my pictures get -- all I have to do is post them once and they get re-posted several more times.
.
Then I don't have to repeat myself! ;)
.
I have no problem with you posting your CGIS' as long as you don't try to pass these CGIS' off as photographs.
-
.
See how my pictures get re-posted and I don't have to repeat myself! This is great. ;D
.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
.
-
.
Flat-earthers yearn to identify with antiquity, and they imagine a certain popularity of their present kind of thinking long ago:
Round earthers yearn to identify with modernism and live the greatest popularity of their present thinking.
-
.
See how my pictures get re-posted and I don't have to repeat myself! This is great. ;D
.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
.
Your CGIS' are not pictures.
-
So the bottom line is: Columbus was wrong after all? :furtive:
-
So the bottom line is: Columbus was wrong after all? :furtive:
Columbus was a flat earther.
-
Columbus was a flat earther.
.
If Columbus believed in a "flat" earth, then why did he bother with crow's nests?
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagonow.com%2Fdutch-alien-lands-in-us%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F10%2Funtitled-443-e1413133204641.png&sp=2e7d957273462cbdcd9bededaffe2224)
-
His crew was flat-earth.
He was round-earth.
:incense: Or so the nuns told us.
-
.
Regarding evidence for the shape of the earth in the day of Colombus:
.
Jeremy Schlichter
Here is part of my research paper.
.
"Columbus was about 2,000 years too late for this quest. Ancient Greek mathematicians had already proven that the earth was round, not flat. Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. was one of the originators of the idea. Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. provided the physical evidence, such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon, and the curvature of the earth known by all sailors approaching land, and by the third century B.C., Eratosthenes determined the earth's shape, and circuмference using basic geometry. In the second century A.D., Claudius Ptolemy wrote the “Almagest,” the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. [5 Toomer Chapter 2] This text was well-known throughout educated Europe in Columbus’s time.
.
"The Columbus flat-earth myth more than likely originated with Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus [6 Russell, Page 64]; there's no mention of this before this biography, and his crew wasn't nervous about falling off the Earth. In volume two, chapter four of this biography Irving writes, an (more than likely, false) account of ignorant and bigoted members on the commission who had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical [7. Irving, page 215]."
-
So the bottom line is: Columbus was wrong after all? :furtive:
.
Columbus named his three ships after Our Lady, and without being aware of it the names were a prophesy of the 1531 apparition to Juan Diego, that would become known as La Virgen de Guadalupe, because La Nina means "the girl," La Pinta means "the painting" (or properly something that appears to be painted but is inherently that color and design, like the pinto horse), and La Santa Maria, obviously "The Saint Mary." Our Lady, Santa Maria, would appear as a "girl" (about age 14) in an image that appears to be painted but is not, as if it "grew" that way.
.
On his 3 ships, the sailors prayed the Rosary nearly constantly, raising flags to indicate the mysteries and prayers they exchanged between ships. It was the first trans-Atlantic voyage that prayed the Rosary all the way. Perhaps this is the reason the other earlier reputed voyages never counted as having been the discovery of America.
.
Of course, the detractors against Columbus would have everyone forget about his prayers and faith and obedience to a Catholic monarch.
.
-
Some hold he was a mystic - he wrote almost prophetically about his future voyages and their purpose (souls for Our Lord). The style was akin to Isaias' from Scripture, according to William Thomas Walsh.
-
.
Columbus named his three ships after Our Lady, and without being aware of it the names were a prophesy of the 1531 apparition to Juan Diego, that would become known as La Virgen de Guadalupe, because La Nina means "the girl," La Pinta means "the painting" (or properly something that appears to be painted but is inherently that color and design, like the pinto horse), and La Santa Maria, obviously "The Saint Mary." Our Lady, Santa Maria, would appear as a "girl" (about age 14) in an image that appears to be painted but is not, as if it "grew" that way.
.
On his 3 ships, the sailors prayed the Rosary nearly constantly, raising flags to indicate the mysteries and prayers they exchanged between ships. It was the first trans-Atlantic voyage that prayed the Rosary all the way. Perhaps this is the reason the other earlier reputed voyages never counted as having been the discovery of America.
.
Of course, the detractors against Columbus would have everyone forget about his prayers and faith and obedience to a Catholic monarch.
.
Never heard that. Now I see why they want to get rid of Columbus Day.
-
Well, we need to see some actual primary source evidence that Columbus actually believed that the earth was round. It seems that it was all made up. The default is to presume that he thought like everyone else : that the earth was flat. He simply wanted to find another flat earth route to India.
-
Never heard that. Now I see why they want to get rid of Columbus Day.
.
The liberal news media and the Communist grip on teachers' unions and school boards started in 1984 to put into high gear their anti-Columbus propaganda, with the aim of having everyone in Retreat Mode long in advance of 1992.
.
(For over 20 years already, they had been teaching in public schools that Columbus headed a profit-seeking enterprise of enslavement of indigenous peoples under the mere pretense of religious indoctrination because the Catholic Church was a totally corrupt organization bent on profit motives.)
.
Otherwise, from 1492 to 1992 would have been the 500th Anniversary of the Discovery of America, and that celebration had to be shot down proactively.
.
By the time 1992 came around I did not see or hear one hint of commemoration of the Columbus voyage that opened the New World.
.
They were unable to get rid of Columbus Day at the same time, for that agenda item they'd have to wait a few years. But now here we are, just 25 years later, and now that is the hot ticket item sweeping the country, with academia firmly behind it under the guise of environmentalism, anti-discrimination, anti-imperialism, and so-called freedom of religion (otherwise known as indifferentism or universal salvation).
.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DbaPAuVMy0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DbaPAuVMy0)
-
.
Answer:
.
.
googledocs transcript of the video:
.
50+ Reasons The Earth Is NOT Flat!
This is a transcript for a video of the same name. Watch it here (20 minutes):
.
https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U
.
The most popular Flat Earthers' map is an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map. The distances on such maps are only correct in relation to the center point. All other distances are distorted. An Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map can be made for any point on Earth including Antarctica. The Qantas nonstop flight from Sydney to Santiago would not work on a Flat Earth map.
.
There are a number of permanent research stations in Antarctica and they can all vouch for the fact that Antarctica is only about 11,000 miles in circuмference, not 78,000 miles as a Flat Earth map shows. Antarctica is a continent even though it's landmass is covered with ice. In the North Pole there are only temporary research stations because there's no land mass and the ice is constantly moving or breaking up. Fedor Konyukhov circuмnavigated Antarctica in 102 days. If he were doing this on a Flat Earth he would have been traveling at an average of 26.94 knots per hour, which would have smashed the single hulled speed record by seven knots per hour and 101.5 days.
.
The first overland crossing of Antarctica was completed by Vivian Fuch's team in 1958. According to Flat Earthers this would be impossible. There are currently 45 companies that are members of the International Association of Antarctica Tourist Operations, including ships flights and land-based operations. During the 2007-2008 season there were 46,265 visitors. None of these companies claim Antarctica is the end of the Earth. Antarctica has a six month day and a six-month night each year as does the North Pole. This would be impossible on a flat Earth. Many webcams are set up in Antarctica where one can see pictures taken every 15 seconds to an hour and which show the 24-hour day or 24-hour night.
.
There are three poles in Antarctica, a geographic pole, a magnetic pole and a ceremonial pole. The fact that lines of longitude converge on the geographic pole proves the Earth is a globe. Similarly to Antarctica, southern cities of the world have longer days during the December or summer solstice. Ushuaia, Argentina, 17 hours 19 minutes. Cape Town, South Africa, 14 hours 25 minutes. Hobart, Australia, 15 hours 21 minutes. Invercargill, New Zealand, 15 hours and 48 minutes. This would be impossible on a flat Earth.
.
Excellent!
-
.
This is another view of the flat-earthers' golden calf idol:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
How in the world they got a camera outside the "dome" is anyone's guess, though.
.
Guess what their answer is to the following question:
.
Why is Australia illuminated? Is the sun shining on it? But isn't it supposed to be night on that side of the "flat" earth?'.
.
Their answer is, "Light doesn't travel forever, which proves the stars can't be millions of miles away."
.
-
God Created the Flat Earth.
.
In your dreams.
.
-
Do really try to be as uncharitable as possible?
-
Do really try to be as uncharitable as possible?
.
Oh, so you haven't lost the ability to post after all! Great. Then you certainly wouldn't want to avoid answering the question left unanswered, would you, I mean, that would be uncharitable to ignore an important question.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Why is the moon dark on the bottom side where someone in Australia would see it?
.
How does someone in Australia see a full moon when they look up and see a dark moon?'
.
-
It's just an illustration.
-
.
-
.
Listen sweetheart,
If you have nothing substantial to contribute to this discussion, it is better that you don't post at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJrEBtmM1Q
-
Listen sweetheart,
If you have nothing substantial to contribute to this discussion, it is better that you don't post at all...
Sounds like that is some pretty good whiskey you are taking at the moment!
-
:confused:
Quote from: kiwiboy on Sun Sep 17 2017 18:26:16 GMT-0600 (MDT)
But perhaps, like Neil Obstat you prefer to ignore posts that challenge you, especially if it comes from a man, and opt to pick on the women instead....
-
:confused:
Don't worry, I'm picking on you as well....
Now would you like to actually address the issues?
-
Don't worry, I'm picking on you as well....
Now would you like to actually address the issues?
Which issue? You just presented us with another issue with you...
Remember a recent quote that went something like... Can't see the forest for the trees.
Your response shows your are hung up on particulars, and can't perceive the context of something which is of greater importance.
-
Don't worry, I'm picking on you as well....
Now would you like to actually address the issues?
.
The question flat-earthers can't answer........
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
Standing in Australia, during a full moon, but what do you see when you look up?
.
-
Listen sweetheart,
If you have nothing substantial to contribute to this discussion, it is better that you don't post at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJrEBtmM1Q
.
Another irrelevant, stupid video posed by the troll, kiwiwimp.
.
How about YOU answering the question you keep running away from, kiwiwimpy?
.
Fruity wimpy kiwiwimpy crybaby
.
Quote from: Neil Obstat (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=45350.msg568810#msg568810) on Sun Sep 24 2017 21:41:49 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
.
Flat-earthers can't deal with the discussion so they resort to bad-mouthing and mundane platitudes.
.
There is no question they're upset because they know they've lost the substantive argument.
.
The crybably flat-earthers complain without restraint.
.
They cannot answer how someone standing in Australia can see a full moon in the diagram.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
They can't answer the question, so they just keep posting silly nonsense videos they grab from the pile at flat-tards forum, using "Australia" for a search term.
.
Someone standing in Australia in the diagram, looking up, sees not a full moon but the bottom side of a moon that is dark on the bottom since the sun shines from the side across the map.
.
The diagram shows the moon on one side of the earth and the sun on the other side, which produces a full moon phase.
.
We never see the moon with a darkened bottom side. The moon is never dark on the bottom, close to earth.
.
The moon is dark on one side (left or right) but never on the top or the bottom.
.
And whatever the phase of the moon is at a given hour, it is observed in that same phase all over the world, wherever it is visible.
.
That would be impossible with a so-called flat earth model.
.
-
Which issue? You just presented us with another issue with you...
Remember a recent quote that went something like... Can't see the forest for the trees.
Your response shows your are hung up on particulars, and can't perceive the context of something which is of greater importance.
Go and watch the videos or else stop trolling flat earthers please.
You have nothing substantial to say on the science so far. But I am giving you a chance. So take it.
I'm not even going to respond to the diatribe of Neil. For anyone who does know how utterly uncharitable this individual is, just read his posts for a while.
-
Go and watch the videos or else stop trolling flat earthers please.
:-X
-
But I am giving you a chance. So take it.
(http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1336812879857853609.jpg)
I'm not even going to respond to the diatribe of Neil.
You're really going to disappoint Neil for proving his point..
For anyone who does know how utterly uncharitable this individual is, just read his posts for a while.
(http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/attachments/f13/79100d1378973372-tumbling-block-cutting-board-monkey_scratching_head.jpg)
-
Go and watch the videos or else stop trolling flat earthers please.
You have nothing substantial to say on the science so far. But I am giving you a chance. So take it.
I'm not even going to respond to the diatribe of Neil. For anyone who does know how utterly uncharitable this individual is, just read his posts for a while.
Neil is one of the hecklers on the thread who become unhinged and hysterical at the idea of a flat earth. I'm not going to engage them anymore in debate.
-
.
Boy, the trolls are out in spades today!
.
The trolls who can't answer a simple question, so they resort to ad hominems and personal insults.
.
The trolls who say that their inability to respond with a substantive answer means the question is "uncharitable."
.
Flat-earthers have no way to explain the phases of the moon using their nonsense model.
.
The consistently ridiculous flat-earth model is a total failure, they know it, but it's also their golden calf false idol, which they serve.
.
They serve their false idol with all their heart, soul and mind, therefore break the First Commandment.
.
They put their "flat" earth in front of God and bow down to worship the thing of their own imagination.
.
-
I'm not afraid of questions. What's your question, Pablo Obsitnate?
-
.
The question flat-earthers can't answer........
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
Standing in Australia, during a full moon, what do you see when you look up?
.
There is no answer to be found because no answer exists.
.
Consequently, the fact that I ask the question means I am "uncharitable."
.
Get it?
.
:facepalm:
-
Maybe everyone:
1. Take a break
1. Cool off
2. Reassess
3. Formulate some tentative "Marquis of Queensbury" type rules
2. Return
1. Propose said rules
1. Collectively agree to that which you can
2. Likewise agree to remind and reinforce said agreement where need be.
Surely all involved can keep their word?
Honestly, what is all this wheelspinning, back and forth really accomplishing?
Why not "choose a champion/spokesperson" and each side/faction/whatever can speak through them. It is much easier to maintain accountability that way, and to keep the stupid to a minimum. It keeps the "stink in the horse" as it were, and each can pre-check content before the barn gets funked up for no good cause. Also, simple apologies go a long way, and each side can correct their own.
Perhap via PM/ cc?
-
Maybe everyone:
1. Take a break
1. Cool off
2. Reassess
3. Formulate some tentative "Marquis of Queensbury" type rules
2. Return
1. Propose said rules
1. Collectively agree to that which you can
2. Likewise agree to remind and reinforce said agreement where need be.
Surely all involved can keep their word?
Honestly, what is all this wheelspinning, back and forth really accomplishing?
Why not "choose a champion/spokesperson" and each side/faction/whatever can speak through them. It is much easier to maintain accountability that way, and to keep the stupid to a minimum. It keeps the "stink in the horse" as it were, and each can pre-check content before the barn gets funked up for no good cause. Also, simple apologies go a long way, and each side can correct their own.
Perhap via PM/ cc?
So says one of the main instigators of lack of charity towards flat-earthers.
-
So says one of the main instigators of lack of charity towards flat-earthers.
Oh the oh so popular "Charity bat"
Nvm.
-
So says one of the main instigators of lack of charity towards flat-earthers.
Thought you were movin on...
-
Neil is one of the hecklers on the thread who become unhinged and hysterical at the idea of a flat earth. I'm not going to engage them anymore in debate.
And how is this not virtuous?
Hold ALL novelties suspect...
-
And how is this not virtuous?
Hold ALL novelties suspect...
"It's NOT a novelty! It's in the Bible, .*. dogma!"
-
"It's NOT a novelty! It's in the Bible, .*. dogma!"
Darn it DZ... I was trying to get back to work but I had to come back and ask you just one question...
How much did Meg pay you to speak on her behalf?
Chow...
-
Darn it DZ... I was trying to get back to work but I had to come back and ask you just one question...
How much did Meg pay you to speak on her behalf?
Chow...
Back off man. A prudent person might consider that I'm also holding her purse, and that she loves flat things.
Oh wait, teasing isn't "charitable".... :fryingpan: :heretic: :incense::facepalm:
:jester:
In all fairness, I'm not tracking that the "Bible = Dogma" is her "thinking"; not that it would surprise me if it were...
-
And how is this not virtuous?
Hold ALL novelties suspect...
Historically speaking, the ball earth is the novelty.
-
.
Standing in Australia, during a full moon, what do you see when you look up?
.
There is no answer to be found because no answer exists.
.
Consequently, the fact that I ask the question means I am "uncharitable."
.
Get it?
.
This is easy:
.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night. The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
The only variation occurs in that when the moon is in a waxing or gibbous phase that it appears mirror-imaged in the south.
.
I have friend in Australia who verified this.
.
.
When the moon is full here, it looks the same there!
This is also demonstrated in the video already posted. The moon is nearly full in the video on the day side of the circle of earth's plane, and it is full on the Australia (night) side of the circle.
.
https://youtu.be/cF94i5XjT5g
-
Historically speaking, the ball earth is the novelty.
So are wheels, and flint knapping, and germ theory, and ceramics, and agriculture...
However, one should ask, "History, according to...?"
Would it, for example, be according to the very pagans that are also poo-pooed by the very same sorts that appeal to them in the next "breath"?
-
Historically speaking, the ball earth is the novelty.
Yes, it is.
The globe-earthers do like novelty.
-
This is easy:
.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night. The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
The only variation occurs in that when the moon is in a waxing or gibbous phase that it appears mirror-imaged in the south.
.
I have friend in Australia who verified this.
.
.
When the moon is full here, it looks the same there!
This is also demonstrated in the video already posted. The moon is nearly full in the video on the day side of the circle of earth's plane, and it is full on the Australia (night) side of the circle.
.
https://youtu.be/cF94i5XjT5g
.
You're not answering the question, as usual.
.
"The moon is nearly full in the video on the day side of the circle of earth's plane, and it is full on the Australia (night) side of the circle." How can the moon be full on the night side of the circle when the viewer is looking up at the dark side of the moon?
.
Apparently you're unable to use your own model, because what you're describing is a globe earth model.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
In the diagram, the moon's phase appears different from different places on your "flat" earth, because the observer looks up at the moon from different angles depending on where he's standing on your "flat" earth.
.
Just by saying "The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth," doesn't make it so.
.
That's what we actually see, and that's what the globe earth model demonstrates.
.
The moon's phase is the same in fact, because that's what we see, but that fact is not demonstrated by your erroneous "flat" earth model.
.
The "mirror-image" you refer to is not a mirror image but an inverted image, since the viewer in Australia is in the southern hemisphere and looks at the moon from "down under" (thus the name, down under).
.
-
.
You're tying yourself up in knots!
.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night. The moon is ALWAYS visible.
..
The moon is "always visible," is it? Then why would the sun not be "always visible" too?
.
If the sun is "always visible" then how do we have night? Can you see the sun at night?
.
Do you believe that the moon is a flat disk like you think the earth is a flat disk?
.
-
(http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1336812879857853609.jpg)
You're really going to disappoint Neil for proving his point..
(http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/attachments/f13/79100d1378973372-tumbling-block-cutting-board-monkey_scratching_head.jpg)
Well at least it's not clear that you are not the slightest bit interested in intelligent discussion.
Your position is obvious and I am relieved at least for that.
-
Well at least it's not clear that you are not the slightest bit interested in intelligent discussion.
Your position is obvious and I am relieved at least for that.
.
Kiwiwimpy, who believes the moon is a flat disk like he believes the earth is a flat disk.
.
-
.
Tardplorable:
This is easy:
.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night. The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night?
.
Did you already forget we're talking about your flat-earth model?
.
Can you seriously look at this, your diagram, and say the moon's phase is the same from any vantage point?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
And then top it off with the moon being always visible?
.
The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
How could the moon be always visible when it's hanging there just like the sun is, and you say they're both about the same distance from the earth, so then the sun is always visible, too?
.
How about at night? Is the sun visible at night?
.
.
.
You can't make this stuff up.
.
-
.
Tardplorable:.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night?
.
Did you already forget we're talking about your flat-earth model?
.
Can you seriously look at this, your diagram, and say the moon's phase is the same from any vantage point?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
And then top it off with the moon being always visible?
.
The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
How could the moon be always visible when it's hanging there just like the sun is, and you say they're both about the same distance from the earth, so then the sun is always visible, too?
.
How about at night? Is the sun visible at night?
.
.
.
You can't make this stuff up.
.
You misunderstood what I said. The moon is visible whether or not it is in the path of the sun's throw of light upon the plane: if it is within the perspective of your horizon. So, the person is on one side of the "triangle" formed by the perspective sight lines (for example, Australia) while the other person is on the other side of the base of the "triangle" of the sight lines, and the moon itself is at the "top" of the triangle.
.
.
This was covered and illustrated in the P-brane perspective video. Since the two objects (sun & moon) are in motion, they are not necessarily travelling together. Therefore, one person on one side of the triangle is in the sun's circular path of light, while the other person on the other side of the triangle is in the night's circular path.
.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
-
You misunderstood what I said. The moon is visible whether or not it is in the path of the sun's throw of light upon the plane: if it is within the perspective of your horizon. So, the person is on one side of the "triangle" formed by the perspective sight lines (for example, Australia) while the other person is on the other side of the base of the "triangle" of the sight lines, and the moon itself is at the "top" of the triangle.
.
.
This was covered and illustrated in the P-brane perspective video. Since the two objects (sun & moon) are in motion, they are not necessarily travelling together. Therefore, one person on one side of the triangle is in the sun's circular path of light, while the other person on the other side of the triangle is in the night's circular path.
.
.
Are you talking to the wall?
.
What "triangle" are you referring to? What perspective sight lines? In your fantasy diagram?
.
You sound like you're the author of the "Pea brained" video.
.
You must live in a fantasy world. Do you take drugs?
.
Unbelievable.
.
-
.
Tardplorable:.
The moon's phase is the same over the entire flat earth, from any vantage point, be it day or night?
.
Did you already forget we're talking about your flat-earth model?
.
Can you seriously look at this, your diagram, and say the moon's phase is the same from any vantage point?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
And then top it off with the moon being always visible?
.
The moon is ALWAYS visible.
.
How could the moon be always visible when it's hanging there just like the sun is, and you say they're both about the same distance from the earth, so then the sun is always visible, too?
.
How about at night? Is the sun visible at night?
.
.
.
You can't make this stuff up.
.
.
I asked a simple question and you replied, but you did not answer the question.
.
Your reply makes you appear insane.
.
I recommend you seek medical treatment.
.
Apparently all flat-earthers are verifiable lunatics.
.
-
.
Yesterday I was surprised to see flatearthtards, with a grand total of 3 posts, starting a new thread which headlines their new website, a practice not allowed on CI because this is not a bulletin board to advertise other websites for free.
.
Today, it was not surprising to see the thread deleted and flateartards back to a grand total of 2 posts, but it was entertaining, nonetheless. ;D
.
Anyway, I went to the fledgling site to look around, and after tripping over all the ESL misprints and grammatical gaffes, I found the omissions and errors not too unexpected. But there was one place where the obfuscation was glaring.
.
In the FAQs area, several questions are displayed, and not surprisingly, the one which flat-earthers unanimously avoid here on CI was not among them. ----- So flat-earthers are transparent in their unwillingness to answer it.
.
Is it too brash for me to conclude that must be because they don't have an intelligible answer to it?
.
The question to which I refer, is of course the one which asks how viewers located at different places on the earth's surface always see the moon in fact showing the same phase at any moment, whereas their flat-earth model would have the same viewers looking at a different moon phase at every moment depending on their location on their "flat" earth.
.
Tardplorable pretended to answer this question, saying "This is easy," then proceeded to not answer it at all but instead rambled on about some fantasy he had while dreaming, apparently, something about triangles in the sky or whatever.
.
In any case, the fledgling website's FAQ No. 6 is as follows, with their not atypically rambling, obtuse and strange response. But notice, if you will, that throughout this so-called answer for a question on gravity, they use the terms "weight," "density," "light" or "lighter," "heavy" or "heavier" and "force" repeatedly, without bothering to define what weight, density, lightness, heaviness or force is. So, effectively, they could be anything you want them to be. One can only imagine what they are to flat-earthers, who prescind from their definition.
.
Imprecision may allow broad swaths of opportunity for non-scientists or those who have not studied logic, but for the educated and informed, imprecision merely provides a platform of inadequacy and incredulity.
.
Additionally, they don't bother to mention the vacuum experiments that remove the effects of ambient air. Those wouldn't do their false conclusions any favors -- so like good Communists, they deliberately omitted them. And this fakery is considered somehow "credible" by flat-earthers?
.
Here and there throughout the site, I see hints of foreign language adaptation, indicating that perhaps German or Hungarian were the original tongue and someone translated it into English, that is, someone without much knowledge of English.
.
BTW I didn't break it up into paragraphs, so this is as the site shows it, without any grouping or separation, which makes it less readable IMO, but that's the way they have it.
.
The previous question (No. 5) was "How do Foucault Pendulums [sic] work?" therefore, it would seem that "How does ____ work?" is implied toward the next question, below.
.
No, I did not add the double quote marks in place of possessive and contraction apostrophes.
.
.
6. What about gravity?
If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with "gravity." The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from "gravity." Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe. "Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton‟s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground." -Lady Blount, "Clarion‟s Science Versus God‟s Truth" (40) Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy. He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: "How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick? I throw up this book. Why doesn‟t it go on up? That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason. I cut the string of a toy balloon. It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take this brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. That is all." "Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" ( 8 ) "The „law of gravitation‟ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this „most exact of all sciences,‟ this wonderful „feat of the intellect‟ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (36) Einstein‟s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton‟s "law of gravitation." Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by "law" are caught up in the Sun‟s "gravity" and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their "ball-Earth" without falling off. Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is "gravity" that it can glue people‟s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both. "If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?" -A. Giberne, "Sun, Moon, and Stars" (27) Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical "law" without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science. "That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an „ attraction,‟ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the „poles‟; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the „elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!‟ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating „scientist.‟" -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, "Zetetic Astronomy" (14) How is it that "gravity" is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that "gravity" holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that "gravity" can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!
.
-
I was refraining from allowing the tards to consume any of my time today, but I had to read the bit that Neil brought over to share from fairyland...
One of the things that jumped out at me was the comparison of smoke to that of an apple.
It really made me wonder, are all flat-tards confined within the concrete jungle of the modern city? Could this be an underlining problem with them that they take those simply understood things like smoke, or maybe I just take this understanding for granted, and use it as evidence without ever questioning what is smoke?
I don't know about anybody else, but it's one of the first mysterys to be understood as a child on the farm...
-
.
Yesterday I was surprised to see flatearthtards, with a grand total of 3 posts, starting a new thread which headlines their new website, a practice not allowed on CI because this is not a bulletin board to advertise other websites for free.
.
Today, it was not surprising to see the thread deleted and flateartards back to a grand total of 2 posts, but it was entertaining, nonetheless. ;D
.
Anyway, I went to the fledgling site to look around, and after tripping over all the ESL misprints and grammatical gaffes, I found the omissions and errors not too unexpected. But there was one place where the obfuscation was glaring.
.
In the FAQs area, several questions are displayed, and not surprisingly, the one which flat-earthers unanimously avoid here on CI was not among them. ----- So flat-earthers are transparent in their unwillingness to answer it.
.
Is it too brash for me to conclude that must be because they don't have an intelligible answer to it?
.
The question to which I refer, is of course the one which asks how viewers located at different places on the earth's surface always see the moon in fact showing the same phase at any moment, whereas their flat-earth model would have the same viewers looking at a different moon phase at every moment depending on their location on their "flat" earth.
.
Tardplorable pretended to answer this question, saying "This is easy," then proceeded to not answer it at all but instead rambled on about some fantasy he had while dreaming, apparently, something about triangles in the sky or whatever.
.
In any case, the fledgling website's FAQ No. 6 is as follows, with their not atypically rambling, obtuse and strange response. But notice, if you will, that throughout this so-called answer for a question on gravity, they use the terms "weight," "density," "light" or "lighter," "heavy" or "heavier" and "force" repeatedly, without bothering to define what weight, density, lightness, heaviness or force is. So, effectively, they could be anything you want them to be. One can only imagine what they are to flat-earthers, who prescind from their definition.
.
Imprecision may allow broad swaths of opportunity for non-scientists or those who have not studied logic, but for the educated and informed, imprecision merely provides a platform of inadequacy and incredulity.
.
Additionally, they don't bother to mention the vacuum experiments that remove the effects of ambient air. Those wouldn't do their false conclusions any favors -- so like good Communists, they deliberately omitted them. And this fakery is considered somehow "credible" by flat-earthers?
.
Here and there throughout the site, I see hints of foreign language adaptation, indicating that perhaps German or Hungarian were the original tongue and someone translated it into English, that is, someone without much knowledge of English.
.
BTW I didn't break it up into paragraphs, so this is as the site shows it, without any grouping or separation, which makes it less readable IMO, but that's the way they have it.
.
The previous question (No. 5) was "How do Foucault Pendulums [sic] work?" therefore, it would seem that "How does ____ work?" is implied toward the next question, below.
.
No, I did not add the double quote marks in place of possessive and contraction apostrophes.
.
.
6. What about gravity?
If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with "gravity." The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from "gravity." Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe. "Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton‟s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground." -Lady Blount, "Clarion‟s Science Versus God‟s Truth" (40) Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy. He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: "How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick? I throw up this book. Why doesn‟t it go on up? That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason. I cut the string of a toy balloon. It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take this brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. That is all." "Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" ( 8 ) "The „law of gravitation‟ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this „most exact of all sciences,‟ this wonderful „feat of the intellect‟ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (36) Einstein‟s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton‟s "law of gravitation." Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by "law" are caught up in the Sun‟s "gravity" and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their "ball-Earth" without falling off. Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is "gravity" that it can glue people‟s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both. "If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?" -A. Giberne, "Sun, Moon, and Stars" (27) Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical "law" without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science. "That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an „ attraction,‟ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the „poles‟; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the „elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!‟ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating „scientist.‟" -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, "Zetetic Astronomy" (14) How is it that "gravity" is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that "gravity" holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that "gravity" can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
Effectively speaking at least, how is this and like not the production of a bot; what else is to be reasonably concluded from such?
Serious question, for I'm not a mental health, heuristics, or computing professional.
At the very least it is literally scripted behavior, no?
-
I was refraining from allowing the tards to consume any of my time today, but I had to read the bit that Neil brought over to share from fairyland...
One of the things that jumped out at me was the comparison of smoke to that of an apple.
It really made me wonder, are all flat-tards confined within the concrete jungle of the modern city? Could this be an underlining problem with them that they take those simply understood things like smoke, or maybe I just take this understanding for granted, and use it as evidence without ever questioning what is smoke?
I don't know about anybody else, but it's one of the first mysterys to be understood as a child on the farm...
Your posts are pretty incoherent, and even more so that you have refused the opportunity to engage in serious discussion on the flat earth.
Probably best not to troll anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xrxrEEGVdM
-
Your posts are pretty incoherent, and even more so that you have refused the opportunity to engage in serious discussion on the flat earth.
Probably best not to troll anymore.
.
So you're going to stop trolling, finally?
.
That remains to be seen!!
.
-
I was refraining from allowing the tards to consume any of my time today, but I had to read the bit that Neil brought over to share from fairyland...
One of the things that jumped out at me was the comparison of smoke to that of an apple.
It really made me wonder, are all flat-tards confined within the concrete jungle of the modern city? Could this be an underlining problem with them that they take those simply understood things like smoke, or maybe I just take this understanding for granted, and use it as evidence without ever questioning what is smoke?
I don't know about anybody else, but it's one of the first mysterys to be understood as a child on the farm...
.
Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.
.
-
Your posts are pretty incoherent, and even more so that you have refused the opportunity to engage in serious discussion on the flat earth.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the sharpest tack in the drawer... but as long as you are present, I don't have to worry about being the dullest.
Probably best not to troll anymore.
I agree... now why don't you get away from my fishing hole...
-
.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post -- you're replying without being aware of its contents.
.
I was quoting text from your own buddy's website, but you missed that altogether.
.
Post (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/catholic-intro-video-to-flat-earth/msg569088/#msg569088)
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
.
Wrong. As usual.
.
The horizon does not appear perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer, made clear by the word "around" since the view is a circular one, not a flat one. And the higher the viewer rises the larger the view, which describes the outlook from the top of a great sphere, not a plane.
.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
.
Wrong, again. So what else is new?
.
The horizon does not "rise" anywhere. The horizon stays right where it is. When you look at things, whatever they are, they don't move by the fact of you looking at them. You're confusing your own subjective movement with the the object seen. The horizon isn't rising, but your view is lowering, as you cast your eyes down toward the horizon.
.
Nor would you ever know that's happening because you are not using any instrument to check the level of your line of sight.
.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.
And again, you're wrong.
.
You keep posting this nonsense about the "natural physics of water" without any reference or authority. What is your source? Have you conducted experiments to test your hypothesis? Whose definition of water or physics are you using?
.
Water, like any fluid, seeks to conform to the confines of its container. The bottom of a lake is shaped like the ground it covers, which becomes seen when the lake dries up. The perimeter of a lake is measured manually on a map by the use of a planimeter (see illustration), a simple (yet complex) device that incorporates the calculus integral continuously to measure the area bounded by the confines of an irregular closed area, like the plan view of a lake's shoreline. This is how technicians of old estimated the volume of water in a lake with changing elevation.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersweb.wabash.edu%2Ffacstaff%2Ffooter%2FPlanimeter%2FPictures%2Famsler.jpg&sp=23c15eba3442c6468e8b552fecb76759) a planimeter in use on a map of a lake
.
-
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the sharpest tack in the drawer... but as long as you are present, I don't have to worry about being the dullest.
I agree... now why don't you get away from my fishing hole...
Thanks for your substantial contribution to this discussion.
Neil is very proud of you I am sure.
-
.
"Your posts are pretty incoherent, and even more so that you have refused the opportunity to engage in serious discussion on the flat earth."
.
Anytime you're ready for a coherent discussion, just let me know.
.
Since you flat-earthers have nothing to say about smoke, for example, perhaps we could start there?
.
Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.
.
Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.
.