CathInfo.com

I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".

All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.

I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.

That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.

I understand this. My best example is: The existence of pathogenic viruses hasn't been proven, at least not to me, so I assume there aren't any. That doesn't mean that I have an alternative explanation for so called "contaminous" diseases. And I don't subscribe to more or less esoteric ideas of e.g. Dr. Stefan Lanka, who on the one hand has demonstrated that current virologist theories are BS, but on the other hand offers ludicrous alternative explanations. Same thing for Dr. Andrew Kauffman, and Dr. Tom Cowan.

Concerning the topic of this thread, to reject much, most, or all of NASA, ISS, Moon landings, astronomy, etc., some people seem to feel the need to react by defending obscure alternative theories. Based on outlandish folks like Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould de Sodington Blount, Eric Dubay, and others, they defend a theory which is philosophically absurd, just like Heliocentrism, which was condemned as such by the Roman Inquisiton.

I agree with you. To reject what government, science, or whoever presents as truth, as acceptable, as reasonable, one doesn't need to present an alternative theory. And I think one better well watches out, to not fall for the next best offered "alternatives". It's in the well known Protocols. "They" control both sides.

Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true."   

Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words. 

Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants).  For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).

You just present a strawman logical fallacy. I (and others) never said what you say we said. Consequently, you didn't quote anyone saying what you say we said.

A despicable comment of yours.

You don't quote any logical fallacy of mine or anyone else, but just claim that your opponents present such. If you want to convince not just the retarded, like yourself, you would have to quote our alleged fallacies.

You react on my recent post about the "Book of Enoch". I showed that it contradicts the known flat earthers models of the trajectories of sun, moon, and stars. And my comment hasn't been refuted so far. No one even tried to. Not even you.

You have the wrong mental picture of FE.  The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit).  The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.

I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.

Since the Earth is a sphere, the flatness in it and along the surface is tangential. How many tangents are there to a sphere is how flat so flat. It's like al-Kindi rays and corners and all the aspects of astro-weathers and bills to be paid all up in here and all across the great wide world. The flat Earthers confuse the stillness of it with flatness, since stillness seems flat to them rather than round, like the flat surface of calm water. Yet all water is as round as pure space in the drops and the dew. 

About space and the bank, to continue on with such notes and observations, even in empiricism there is the question of infinite regress and how many tangents to a sphere, that Husserl attempted to address. Some of those manuscripts have been lost, however. But this is only partly to address Feral Rezerve Bank and WEF empirosity and how those astronomical numbers are never gonna get paid as flat broke as many people are. Flat broke is flat as another tangent to a sphere of some activity, for examples.