Well, you contradict the long entry which you yourself posted earlier, which is trying to refute Sungenis based on the very idea which you now deny. That post apparently was a copy and paste without using "quote"-tags and without giving the source, anyway.

What do you expect me to comment, when you contradict yourself? What terms are appropriate to name someone in a case like that?

The rest of your post shows that you don't even take notice of the content of my posts. Or at least you hide it. Feels like talking to a concrete wall. You have to deal with what folks say to you, in case you don't want to appear like a robot spitting at humans.

.
Flat-earthers contradict themselves all the time, it's normal behavior for them. 
It's a one way street though, to them they have free license to self-contradict but nobody else does.
They think they own the rights to self-contradiction, do it with wild abandon, and refuse to recognize the fact that they do it.

Carl Sagan's Humean, positivist dictum isn't true. Transubstantiation is an excellent counterexample.

Transubstantiation is a completely separate issue that falls in the realm of religion and belief.  Not that it is any less true, but that it remains unverifiable (except for miracles) and it is beyond the scope of science.  For the rest of the ordinary metaphysical realities in our world, the claim applies.

Sungenis' latest book has been proven wrong and his response has been proven wrong according to Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.  Those who are unable to detach themselves from their false ideologies and their scientific heroes long enough to discern are myriad.  But isn't that always the way?