Damn it. Even if he has confirmation bias it can be (and, based on the pattern of his work, almost certainly is) a mistake.

I'm afraid that I simply don't understand the lack of logic, except that you tend to see that when someone is not being intellectually honest.

Argument is very simple, and it's not the strawman argument he presents (that FE hold ALL NASA images to be fraudulent), but if any are fraudulent, then none of them can be trusted ... even if they have happened to craft some that aren't obviously fake (i.e. that they're realistic).

Once the credibility of NASA is gone, he'd have to prove that any given image is real, and there simply is no way to do that.  Demonstrating that any particular image is believable, credible, realistic does not suffice, as NASA clearly has the funds and the technology to create such images.

And, yes, you occasionally see some absurd arguments from FE.  But this debate isn't about any given person's views, but about the objective question of whether the surface of the earth is flat.  And some of the more absurd arguments come from places like the Flat Earth Society, which certainly appears to have been turned into a disinfo operation.

So, for instance, you occasionally see people making absurd claims about 9/11, but this does not prove that 9/11 was pulled off by a bunch of Arabs with box-cutters.  So that would be like me arguing from a few absurd theories made either by nutjobs or else government disinfo agents deliberately attempting to discredit any doubts about the official story.

At one point, Sungenis spends 2-3 pages on the views of Mark Sergeant, that I'll get back to later

Indeed.  I went into this with a great deal of prior respect for Dr. Sungenis (you can read that in the posts I made prior to actually getting this book and starting to read it), but that's been seriously tarnished from what I'm reading here.  Based on an interview he gave, I was assuming that there would be a respectful debate in the interests of seeking truth.  That is clearly not what we have here in this book, and I must say that I'm incredibly disappointed.

Your reading of my attitude is spot on.  I figured there would be some hole here or a hole there.  Heck, I was even open to being convinced that I was wrong.  But after a couple pages of what amounts to sheer nonsense, I am in fact exasperated with this ... perhaps partly because I had expected better before diving in.

I am still open to being proven wrong about FE, but this here doesn't do it.  I'm still holding out for something convincing or substantial, wherein the book might redeem itself ... but I am no longer holding my breath.

I did read that this book was commissioned by the Kolbe Institute, and the clear intent of the enterprise out of the gate was to refute or disprove Flat Earth.  That was the intent going in.  I wonder what Kolbe would have thought had Sungenis given the topic a fair shake and concluded that the earth was flat.  I suspect that whatever funding was behind this book would have been summarily withdrawn.  And we do in fact have a fair bit of that going on in "science," where people's livelihoods depend on producing the "right" answer.

This is not how we seek the truth.  We seek it by approaching it with an open and objective mind.  I did not "set out" in reading Dr. Sungenis' book to "prove [him] wrong" or to "refute [him]".  I actually was hoping to read some good stuff that challenged my beliefs, and even being open to being persuaded that I have been wrong.

I would have hoped that Dr. Sungenis learned from the treatment to which he's been subjected by the scientific establishment and "orthodoxy" regarding his geoecentrist views:  mockery, derision, being labeled a kook and a nutjob, a liar, a distorter, etc. -- and so not subject flat earthers to the exact same treatment that he himself has received.  No, instead, he JOINS this same scientific establishment that has derided and mocked him in their chorus of derision and ridicule directed at flat earthers.  Here he has allied with the same people that he's been at war all these years about geocentrism.

So here we have FEs, who by and large also support geocentrism, and should be his allies against the largely-Satanic Luciferian Masonic establishment, many / most of whom share his respect for Sacred Scripture ... being thrown overboard to the same wolves that have been attacking him.  If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think that he was throwing us under the bus to the wolves in order to regain some "respect" with the scientific establishment ... like when a herd of animals will leave behind the slow or infirm animals to be ravaged by the wolves, so that they can save their own skin.

Great idea! Lad, if you're going to do all the work to go through an "echo-chamber" book, why not publish your own balanced book?

As to the motivation of Sungenis, I think he may fit into that category of Trads who are so brainwashed that they're incapable of critical analysis. Therefore they jump to the conclusion that FE Trads must be silenced because we discredit Traditional Catholicism.

And I think we need to understand what is meant by intellectual dishonesty.  This does not necessarily mean that Dr. Sungenis is deliberately and consciously setting out to be dishonest, to lie, to distort, etc.  I do believe that he is of good character and would not consciously do anything of the sort.

What is meant by intellectual dishonesty is that he's made up his mind beforehand that FE is false and he's setting to to prove that it's false, to find evidence that it is false. …

"An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary. The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light." —entry "intellectual dishonesty,"{ Urban DIctionary

Are you capable of reading?  …

Have you had the decency to discuss these "easily exposed" "blunders" with him?