Author Topic: Interesting flat earth plane flights video (Read 36751 times)

Petertherock · « **Reply #30 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:09:04 PM »

Yeah...the Earth is flat

McFiggly · « **Reply #31 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:11:38 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

Yeah...the Earth is flat

BTNYC · « **Reply #32 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:24:35 PM »

Youtube has certainly proven to be boon to the current Flat Earth Renaissance.

Nothing out there on fata morganas? It seems like a base I'd want covered if I were a flat earther.

BTNYC · « **Reply #33 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Fisheye lenses.

I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.

So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?

Quote from: Disputaciones

In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.

Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #34 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:45:40 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Disputaciones

In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.

Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?

Why would he? The Church as a whole made an "unofficial" u-turn on the Geocentrism issue, so this change from "compass" to "globe" seems to me like an "updating" of the Bible from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism.

BTNYC · « **Reply #35 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:55:21 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: Disputaciones

In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.

Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?

Why would he? The Church as a whole made an "unofficial" u-turn on the Geocentrism issue, so this change from "compass" to "globe" seems to me like an "updating" of the Bible from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism.

So you've got a Michael Hoffman-like problem where you believe the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II. Have fun with that.

And if you're blaming a post-Galileo laxness on the matter, why wasn't Gauthier de Metz censured for the publication of L'image du Monde, in which he explicitly describes (and illustrates) the world as a sphere back in 1245?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #36 on:** July 05, 2015, 02:59:56 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.

Says someone who was duped big time into giving large amounts of money to a woman over a long period of time when said woman was an obvious opportunist.

Flat earth seems more compelling than the things they were duping you with.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #37 on:** July 05, 2015, 03:08:29 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

So you've got a Michael Hoffman-like problem where you believe the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II. Have fun with that.

Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.

I'd love to know the truth on this matter. What is your take on it?

But don't you believe the Church has taught heresy since V2? Isn't that your stance?

Quote from: BTNYC

And if you're blaming a post-Galileo laxness on the matter, why wasn't Gauthier de Metz censured for the publication of L'image du Monde, in which he explicitly describes (and illustrates) the world as a sphere back in 1245?

I don't know the specifics on this. I'll look into it.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #38 on:** July 05, 2015, 03:35:26 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

Yeah...the Earth is flat

Can't you even realise this "picture" you posted here is not a real picture at all but a composite?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #39 on:** July 05, 2015, 04:05:11 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Petertherock
Yeah...the Earth is flat

Can't you even realise this "picture" you posted here is not a real picture at all but a composite?

The would-be ice layers at the top even look botched up if you look closely at them.

In fact they look like they're at the same height as the clouds or even above them.

Some picture.

BTNYC · « **Reply #40 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for mischaracterizing your position, particularly through implicit association with so odious a figure as Michael Hoffman. A polemical spirit got the better of me, and I went too far.

For the record, I am a geocentrist.

Quote from: Disputaciones

But don't you believe the Church has taught heresy since V2? Isn't that your stance?

Not at all; nor do I believe "the Church" taught Arianism during that dreadful period most like our own, when 90% of the world's bishops had succuмbed to that heresy.

Quote from: Disputaciones

I don't know the specifics on this. I'll look into it.

By all means do.

I might also point out the following here:

St. Bede, Doctor of the Church, also explicitly proclaimed the spherical nature of the earth in De Temporum Ratione, interpreting Isaias in much the same way as Bishop Challoner's Douay translation presents it (and more than 1000 years before Bishop Challoner did so):

Quote from: St. Bede

"...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."

"We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides."

Also, Pope Sylvester II introduced the armillary sphere to Western Europe in the late 10th Century, presupposing a belief in a spherical earth.

Furthermore, on p. 339 of his book, God & Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, Cambridge University Press), Edward Grant points out (emphases mine):

Quote

All medieval students who attended a university knew this (i.e. the sphericity of the earth, as expounded by Aristotle). In fact, any educated person in the Middle Ages knew the earth was spherical, or of a round shape. Medieval commentators on Aristotle's On the Heavens, or in their commentaries on a popular thirteenth-century work titled Treatise on the Sphere by John of Sacrobosco, usually included a question in which they inquired, "whether the whole earth is spherical." Scholastics answered this question unanimously: The earth is spherical, or round. No university-trained author ever thought it was flat.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #41 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:58:35 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Disputaciones

Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for mischaracterizing your position, particularly through implicit association with so odious a figure as Michael Hoffman. A polemical spirit got the better of me, and I went too far.

For the record, I am a geocentrist.

That's all right. I wasn't offended.

So you believe the earth doesn't move at all nor spin but is immovable or only that the earth is at the centre of the universe?

And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.

Quote from: BTNYC

By all means do.

I might also point out the following here:

St. Bede, Doctor of the Church, also explicitly proclaimed the spherical nature of the earth in De Temporum Ratione, interpreting Isaias in much the same way as Bishop Challoner's Douay translation presents it (and more than 1000 years before Bishop Challoner did so):

Quote from: St. Bede

"...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."

"We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides."

Also, Pope Sylvester II introduced the armillary sphere to Western Europe in the late 10th Century, presupposing a belief in a spherical earth.

Furthermore, on p. 339 of his book, God & Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, Cambridge University Press), Edward Grant points out (emphases mine):

Quote

All medieval students who attended a university knew this (i.e. the sphericity of the earth, as expounded by Aristotle). In fact, any educated person in the Middle Ages knew the earth was spherical, or of a round shape. Medieval commentators on Aristotle's On the Heavens, or in their commentaries on a popular thirteenth-century work titled Treatise on the Sphere by John of Sacrobosco, usually included a question in which they inquired, "whether the whole earth is spherical." Scholastics answered this question unanimously: The earth is spherical, or round. No university-trained author ever thought it was flat.

Well yes, i don't know if anyone in the history of the Church ever believed or taught that the earth was flat.

I should clarify i don't totally believe it is flat. I just saw a lot of videos about it and some things look very interesting.

If it really were flat i believe this would be even better proof for God's existence, because what we have been constantly bombarded with is the idea that we're just an insignificant speck nowhere special and that there are billions of other galaxies and planets out there, so naturally people say "There must be life out there, there must be other civilisations" etc. etc.

I don't know if this may be totally anti-Catholic but some believe that the Garden of Eden was outside the "dome", outside earth, so Adam and Eve were expelled from it. They believe the angel guarding it is in the "edges" of the earth, which they believe is the Antarctic.

But if the Garden was here in this same earth, what happened to it and where is it? Did it just degrade or something? What happened to the angel guarding it?

This all sounds kooky i know, but I'm just throwing it out there, not saying i really believe in it.

BTNYC · « **Reply #42 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:19:38 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

So you believe the earth doesn't move at all nor spin but is immovable or only that the earth is at the centre of the universe?

I believe the earth is at rest in the center of the Universe.

I became convinced of geocentrism after reading the works of Prof. Wolfgang Smith 8 or 9 years ago. I became all the more compelled by the fact that even "mainstream" atheistic / materialistic physicists do not have any particular opposition to Geocentric Cosmology per se. I began to wonder, "if even the Church's enemies are not insisting upon this, why are so many within the Church going out of their way to impress our enemies by subscribing to heliocentrism?"

Flat earth-ism is another matter entirely. I think it is largely an invention of 19th Century Protestants attempting to smear the Catholic thinkers of the Middle Ages by attributing to them an untenable doctrine which, as all evidence demonstrates, they themselves did not hold.

So the inverse of the above rationale exists, in my opinion: If the Church Herself does not insist upon a flat-earth model (indeed, She has ever leaned much more clearly in favor of a Spherical Earth, as evidenced above), then why should I (or anyone else) insist upon it? Especially when it is in such violation of common sense (i.e. fata morganas, etc.).

Quote from: Disputaciones

And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.

I must confess an ignorance on the specifics of the disciplinary side of the issue, such that I do not feel confident in giving my opinion on the matter. I'll be able to respond once I've looked more thoroughly into it.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #43 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:50:12 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Disputaciones
And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.

I must confess an ignorance on the specifics of the disciplinary side of the issue, such that I do not feel confident in giving my opinion on the matter. I'll be able to respond once I've looked more thoroughly into it.

You've never had a Novus Ordite or an anti-Catholic tell you that "the Church was wrong on the Galileo affair so it isn't infallible and can make mistakes"?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #44 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:05:25 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.

There's a new docuмentary out on how the Jews faked rubber rooms. Rubber rooms don't actually exist. And it has been proved by a YouTube video that "straitjackets" are actually not strait. They are curved.