Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: jman123 on July 11, 2023, 11:14:49 AM
-
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/flat-earth-hidden-side-hoax-84054
-
...In a 2022 episode of “C Jamy” hosted by the celebrity Jamy Gourmaud, the guest speaker asserted...
And I thought that SSPX priests didn't watch television...
-
Flat Earth? The Hidden Side of a Hoax
JULY 11, 2023
SOURCE: DISTRICT OF THE USA
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/media/usa-district/new-news/flat-earth-1.jpg?itok=CugchPES)
No, the hoax in question doesn’t come from NASA. It refers to the stubborn yet false idea that the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth, and to the ideological underpinnings of this myth.
Captions, L-R: The “Handsome God” of the cathedral in Reims (13th century), holding the globe in his hand | Salvator mundi by Willem Vrelant (†1481) | Nicolas Oresme in front of an armillary sphere with the Earth at the center. Illuminated illustration taken from his Treatise on the Sphere. | Diagram depicting men on Earth from the Imago Mundi by Gossuin de Metz (1246). | Diagram of a lunar eclipse in Treatise on the Sphere by Nicolas Oresme
The recent coronation of Charles III presented us with an image that seemed to come straight out of a history book: the new King Charles III holding in his hands the insignia of royal power, including the orb and the cross, i.e. the sphere mounted with a cross that symbolizes the Earth redeemed by the cross of Jesus Christ. This orb has been in use for a very long time. You can find it throughout the Middle Ages, particularly in depictions of Christ holding the orb in his hand or beneath his feet. The orb represents a globe divided into three parts because of the three continents known at the time. One fact stands out right away: people depicted the Earth as a sphere well before the discovery of the Americas.
This should raise questions about an extremely widespread myth, namely, that “during the Middle Ages people thought that the Earth was flat.” You hear this said by journalists, intellectuals, public officials like Marlène Schiappa or Claude Allègre, and even in historical films, history books, and textbooks -- including recent ones. In a 2022 episode of “C Jamy” hosted by the celebrity Jamy Gourmaud, the guest speaker asserted: “In the 15th century, at the time of Christopher Columbus, many believed that the Earth was flat. They based this belief on what the Bible says, but Christopher Columbus didn’t believe this for a second.”1 And if we consult the barometer of public opinion today, namely ChatGPT, it tells us: “In the Middle Ages, people generally thought that the Earth was flat....Scientific theories about the shape of the Earth, like those developed by the ancient Greeks, were well-known, but they were often considered controversial or heretical by the Church.”2
Hence we see that the alleged “flat-earthism” of the medieval era is associated with the Catholic Church, which supposedly prescribed this naive idea as Biblically-based dogma in opposition to the wisdom of the pagan Greeks. Except that several decades of studies now have proven unequivocally that that is a myth. 3
Innumerable pieces of evidence
Besides the argument from iconography, it would suffice to open any scholarly book by a Catholic clergyman from this extensive period to put an end to the myth of medieval flat-earthism. We know that Christopher Columbus famously based his own audacious enterprise on an unfinished work by Pope Pius II (†1458), Historia rerum ubique gestarum, which the explorer had annotated. In the very first lines of this work, which was intended to be encyclopedic, Pius II asserts that “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]4; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.” In the same work, the pope addresses the measurements of the earth’s circuмference made by Eratosthenes (3rd century B.C.) and Ptolemy (2nd century B.C.). Christopher Columbus had also annotated the Imago mundi, a work by Cardinal Pierre D’Ailly (†1420). In it, the learned cardinal held forth on the radius and volume of the terrestrial sphere, climate zones according to latitude, and even the poles. For example, he states as a logical conclusion that “those who inhabited the Pole would have the sun above their horizon for half of the year and continuous night for the other half”5, which is remarkably accurate. Pierre d’Ailly was inspired by the Treatise on the Sphere by Nicolas Oresme (†1322), Bishop of Lisieux and advisor to Charles V. The title of this work is sufficiently evocative. The same Oresme was inspired by a work with the same title, The Treatise on the Sphere by the English monk Johannes de Sacrobosco († 1256), which was a major pedagogical success and was copied, expanded, and commented on for many centuries.
Around the same time, Saint Thomas Aquinas, who was trying to show in the very first pages of the Summa theologica that we can arrive at the same conclusion through different paths, illustrated his point as follows: “Thus, the astronomer and the physicist prove the same conclusion, namely, that the earth is round.”6 It was therefore a commonplace belief accepted by various scholars of the era. At the turn of the second millennium, Gerbert of Aurillac († 1003), who would be elected pope under the name Sylvester II, constructed a terrestrial globe and, like many learned men of that era, produced a commentary on Macrobius7 († 400), who declared the Earth to be spherical. We can also add Saint Bede the Venerable, († 735), who tells us that “the earth is like a globe;” Saint Isidore of Seville († 636), who talks about the “terrestrial globe” in his famous Etymologies; Boethius († 524) who mentions the “rounded mass of the Earth”8; Saint Gregory of Nyssa († 395), who describes an eclipse for us as a projection of the “spherical form”9 of the Earth upon the moon, etc10. Of course, ancient cosmology also posits an immobile Earth at the center of a finite spherical cosmos, but these errors were taken over from the Greeks.
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/media/usa-district/new-news/flat-earth-2.jpg?itok=LZ3djhQi)
Captions, L-R: Depiction of a solar eclipse from the Imago Mundi by Gossuin de Metz (1246) | Diagram of the Earth in the Ymago Mundi by Pierre d'Ailly (15th century). Notice the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, as well as the Arctic and Antarctic circles | Map in T-O form, Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, 12th century, London, British Library, R12FIV, folio 135v. Only one hemisphere is represented. We find here the tripartite delineation of the three continents. | This modern diagram is supposed to depict the "Biblical cosmos." It does not depict the ancient understanding of the cosmos but rather depicts what some (incorrectly) believe about the ancients. | Currency featuring the effigy of Emperor Zeno († 491). The symbol of Victory is shown on the opposite side, holding an orb and a cross in her left hand.
The makings of a myth
One could assign very little importance to all of this. After all, the Christian can save his soul no matter what shape he attributes to the Earth. Isn’t the essential thing the frightening decline in life expectancy, which is now only 85 years, whereas in the Middle Ages there was hope for eternal life? Certainly—but what interests us here isn’t the shape of the Earth or the science of past eras, but the origin of a modern-day myth and what it tells us about our own age. For a long time, this myth has been used as a ready-made formula for ridiculing in one fell swoop the alleged stupidity of a Christian time period captured by the reductive title of the “Middle Ages.” The charge of “obscurantism,” however, can be turned back on the propagators of this myth, particularly because access to knowledge is incomparably better today than at a time when the printing press did not yet exist. It’s easy to debunk the myth of medieval flat-earthism, whereas it took a considerable amount of work during the Middle Ages to preserve the knowledge of the ancients. In an excellent book published in 2021 entitled La Terre plate, généalogie d’une idée faussse [The Flat Earth: Genealogy of a False Idea]11, two academics trace the origin of this stubborn myth. Is it surprising to find out that the principal author of the myth is none other than Voltaire?
Lactantius and Cosmas
There are indeed several factors that helped give rise to this myth, in particular the Christian apologist Lactantius († 325), who is the sole outlier in the West in favor of a flat Earth. But nobody followed his opinion, and he was never numbered among the Church Fathers. In the East, we find one Cosmas Indicopleustes († approx. 550), who wrote a Christian Topography as a flat-earther. This illustrious unknown, whose very name is uncertain, seems to have been a Greek-speaking merchant who emerged during the Nestorian schism. The first Latin translation of his Topography dates back to 1707. Is it necessary to point out that he was therefore completely unknown to the medieval West? Yet Voltaire cites Lactantius and Cosmas as representing the position taken by all the Church Fathers: “The Fathers regarded the Earth as a massive ship surrounded by water; the prow was in the East, and the stern was in the West.”12
This is a failure to provide the basic historical context for evaluating the transmission of ideas. By lumping things together in this way, someone could just as easily claim that the third millennium adhered to flat earthism based on certain videos available online—it is treating a marginal thesis as if it were the norm. Even today, it is not uncommon to see Cosmas cited as the authority that he never was.
The question of the antipodes
In The City of God, Saint Augustine says that we shouldn’t believe those who assert the existence of “antipodeans”13—that is, people living on the opposite side of the Earth—because this theory is based on uncertain conjectures and not on convincing first-hand accounts. Here Saint Augustine simply points out an empirical demand that one could hardly blame him for and that has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. Yet Voltaire used this to conclude that the great Doctor of the Church denied the sphericity of the Earth! Likewise, Voltaire asserts that “Towards the end of the 15th century, Alonso Tostado, the Bishop of Avila, declares in his Commentary on Genesis that the Christian faith is rocked to its foundations if people believe in a round Earth.” Now, if anyone were to open the book in question, they would immediately discover that Voltaire is lying, since this bishop talks about the “spherical earth” and “our hemisphere”14. On the other hand, Tostado thinks, like Saint Augustine, that the antipodes are not inhabited. In his work cited above, Pierre d’Ailly describes the different theses on whether the antipodes are inhabited as “opinions.” In this domain, we’re very far afield of dogma. The exploration by Christopher Columbus gave an answer to this marginal question of the “antipodeans.” Only after the fact did the legend emerge of Christopher Columbus shattering flat earth dogma on the reef of experience, especially in a biography written by Washington Irving that greatly contributed to the myth.
Is the Bible flat-earthist?
In the trial of flat-earthism, Voltaire calls the defendant Sacred Scripture to the witness stand. He writes with his characteristic ironic venom: “Proper respect for the Bible, which teaches us so many very necessary and very sublime truths, was the cause of this universal error among us. People had found in Psalm 103 that God stretched the heavens over the Earth like a tent.”15 Certainly, if you wanted to extract a confession of flat-earthism from the Bible, you can always pin this preconceived idea to a verse that agrees with it in one way or another16. However, the opposite is equally possible, since the Vulgate regularly designates the Earth with the word “orbis” that we could readily translate as “globe”17. But rather than engage in these fruitless debates, let us recall the well-known Catholic principle that Scripture must be read by the light of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers. Now, Voltaire is not a Father of the Church. Instead, let us give the floor to the remarkable wisdom of Saint Basil of Caesarea (†379) from his Homilies on the Hexaemeron, 9:
Some physicists who discussed the world talked extensively about the shape of the Earth; they investigated whether it is a sphere or a cylinder, whether it resembles a disc, and whether it is round on all sides or whether it has the shape of a fan and whether it is hollow in the center. For these are the ideas that the philosophers had, and with these ideas they have done battle one with the other18: for my part, I will not bring myself to despise our understanding of the world just because Moses, the servant of God, said nothing at all about the shape of the Earth and did not say that it has a circuмference of 180,000 stadia19; because he didn’t measure the space of the air in which the Earth’s shadow extends when the sun has set; because he did not explain how this same shadow, when it approaches the moon, causes eclipses. Because he kept silent regarding these matters which, being useless for us, do not interest us, must I then denigrate the teachings of the Holy Spirit by comparing them to the foolish wisdom [of the world]? Or shouldn’t we rather glorify Him who, instead of entertaining our minds with vanities, wanted everything to be written for our edification and for the salvation of our souls? It seems to me that some, having failed to grasp this, have attempted to attribute a borrowed depth to the Scriptures through alterations of the meaning and figurative interpretations. But that means thinking oneself wiser than the prophets of the Holy Spirit and, under the guise of interpretation, introducing one’s own ideas into the text. Let us therefore accept these prophets exactly how they are written.
We find a similar remark by Augustine in Against Felix the Manichean regarding the movement of the stars:
The Gospels never put words like these in the mouth of the Lord: “I am sending you the Paraclete to teach you about the course of the moon and the sun.” Jesus Christ wanted to make Christians and not mathematicians. Regarding such matters, people need only the teachings given to them in the schools.”
Is the Church “round-earthist”?
The Church has not asserted the flatness of the Earth any more than its roundness because she asserts nothing on this subject. All of the Church Fathers, theologians, and popes who assert that the Earth is spherical do not base their thinking on the faith, because they consider it silent on this subject. Consistently, they refer to the “philosophers,” the “physicists,” and the “mathematicians.” They give arguments drawn from reason and observation: the shadow of the Earth on the moon during eclipses, the mast of the ship that disappears after the hull, or even the new stars that appear on the horizon during voyages at sea. This is an important point, because the myth tried to insinuate that faith and science were mutually exclusive. The believer supposedly was driven to look for truth in faith alone without leaving anything up to reason. But that is not thinking of the Church. The Fathers of the Church intended solely to reject the idea of the eternity of the world put forward by ancient cosmology. Modern cosmology cannot hold that against them.
The inertia of a hoax
All of these elements could lead the uninitiated astray, but they cannot impress any remotely serious historian. The first propagandists of the myth were the most culpable. But once the original hoaxes were uncritically accepted, those that followed repeated the Voltairian catechism, prompted by a blind faith in progress, so that with time, the hoax repeated thousands of times took on the character of an established historical truth. Michelet, who deserves the title of a novelist rather than a historian, obviously took up this fable, among many others. It was also perpetuated by Antoine-Jean Letronne, who held the chair of history at the prestigious College of France in the 19th century20. History has shown that even authors like Arthur Koestler have erred in this regard, even though he helped to demystify the Galileo affair21. There is even a book published in 2015 claiming to “shatter the myths” that presents a slightly nuanced version of it22. Initially, this myth was propagated mainly by anti-Catholic circles, but as time went on, it quickly came to deceive Catholics.
Additional elements were added later, such as old maps, sometimes presented as evidence of medieval flat-earthism. However, considering flat maps as proof of flat-earthism is an astonishingly foolish argument that would have us classify the creators of Rand McNally maps or the designers of Google Maps as flat-earthers on the grounds that they depict the Earth’s surface as flat. As for cross-sectional representations [“side views”], which could constitute real evidence, they are not derived from medieval manuscripts but are contemporary productions designed to illustrate the myth! The myth thus becomes the creator of its own “evidence.” It perpetuates itself.
The origins of modern flat-earthism
Ironically, the birth of the real flat-earther phenomenon today can be traced back to the 19th century, shortly after the “Enlightenment,” during the rise of rationalism and deep within a utopian socialist community. Indeed, around 1839, Samuel Rowbotham, secretary of the short-lived utopian community Manea Fen inspired by Owenism23, conducted experiments along the Bedford River from which he concluded that the Earth is flat. He published a pamphlet entitled “Zetetic Astronomy” (1849) to defend his bizarre conclusion by appealing to his “zetetic”24 method based solely on reason. He went on to produce a more substantial work (1881) by adding a few Biblical passages that he interpreted very idiosyncratically, citing neither the Church Fathers, nor Cosmas, nor the Middle Ages, and certainly not the Magisterium, for he was a Protestant who seemed to have had no denominational affiliation. His ideas were later embraced by a Protestant sect called the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, which obviously has nothing to do with Catholicism despite its name, and after that they were taken up by the famous Flat-Earth Society, which continues to exist to this day.
Conclusion
It is disconcerting and revealing to observe that an error as crude as this one could still be so widespread. If such a myth was able to burden the scholarly textbooks for two centuries, how many others are still hiding among contemporary ideas about medieval Christianity? There’s the alleged prohibition of dissection25, the absurd story of the debate about the soul of women26, the myth of the lord’s first night, which Voltaire does not hesitate to attribute to the bishops27, etc. Reality ends up being even harder to discern when objective facts have been taken and mixed up with myth, for example the witch hunts, the Inquisition, or the Galileo affair. All of these myths took root even more tenaciously because they reinforced the preconceived ideas of anti-clericals, whether they revolutionaries or Protestants, even though they talk incessantly about the “battle against prejudice.”
The principal cause of these myths must be sought in this mentality: They judge the medieval period to be irrational because they look at it irrationally. They project their own irrationality onto the past, the better to reinforce the pride of a present day which is deemed to be “enlightened” by reason; out of a prideful Manichaeism, they say the past is “obscurantist” and that we are finally “enlightened.” But the “enlightenment” of the third millennium is not that bright; don’t we see people in high places seriously entertaining the possibility of putting men in women’s prisons or in women’s sports simply because those men have declared that they feel like women? Don’t we see elected officials plead for the preservation of Paris’s “brown rats”? Truly, our world is going to hell in a handbasket. Could the loss of faith have anything to do with this loss of reason? By forgetting this religious verticality that draws man towards God, the Earth today has lost one of its dimensions; it has become spiritually flat.
-
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/flat-earth-hidden-side-hoax-84054
Pretty sorry excuse in this feeble attempt to debunk flat earth with dead on arrival content. Whoever wrote the piece was too lazy to make himself aware of the copious proofs that void his conclusions, so he winds up navel gazing, having ignored the lion's share of the argument somewhere beyond his reach. I would love to tear this apart, but repeating what I and others have already done on CI and other places, seems like an exercise in futility since they couldn't be less interested in getting to the bottom of it. Just have to keep taking it to the streets.
-
See, this article is doing the same thing Matthew just finished pointing out on the thread.
See, Catholics of the Middle Ages were not these backwards simpletons who believed in a Flat Earth. This article isn't even about the claims of FE, but rather, begs the question, assumes that FE is ridiculous and absurd and then tries to claim that it's just an anti-Catholic smear campaign to make Catholics look bad.
This is the same SSPX, Sean, who also distanced themselves from the wicked, bizarre, and crazy anti-Semitism of Bishop Williamson ... with the same motivation. Or published Fr. Paul Robinson's Modernist Manifesto.
-
Despite Big Tech's attempts to suppress FE, people are catching on ... seeing how many people are out there attempting to debunk it.
-
Pretty sorry excuse in this feeble attempt to debunk flat earth with dead on arrival content. Whoever wrote the piece was too lazy to make himself aware of the copious proofs that void his conclusions, so he winds up navel gazing, having ignored the lion's share of the argument somewhere beyond his reach. I would love to tear this apart, but repeating what I and others have already done on CI and other places, seems like an exercise in futility since they couldn't be less interested in getting to the bottom of it. Just have to keep taking it to the streets.
He doesn't even address any of the real substantial arguments one way or the other. He merely assumes right out of the gate that it's false. Sole intent of the author is to distance himself from something that he feels would be a stigma to the Church. Of course, they'd probably write the same kind of piece explaining away the Galileo affair. "No, the Church didn't condemn heliocentrism, just Galileo's disobedience."
-
He doesn't even address any of the real substantial arguments one way or the other. He merely assumes right out of the gate that it's false. Sole intent of the author is to distance himself from something that he feels would be a stigma to the Church. Of course, they'd probably write the same kind of piece explaining away the Galileo affair. "No, the Church didn't condemn heliocentrism, just Galileo's disobedience."
Exactly. The author tries to pick up in the middle of something he knows nothing about, and by the time he's done, he's been caught hiding his own Easter eggs.
-
See, this article is doing the same thing Matthew just finished pointing out on the thread.
See, Catholics of the Middle Ages were not these backwards simpletons who believed in a Flat Earth. This article isn't even about the claims of FE, but rather, begs the question, assumes that FE is ridiculous and absurd and then tries to claim that it's just an anti-Catholic smear campaign to make Catholics look bad.
This is the same SSPX, Sean, who also distanced themselves from the wicked, bizarre, and crazy anti-Semitism of Bishop Williamson ... with the same motivation. Or published Fr. Paul Robinson's Modernist Manifesto.
You appear to be unable to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I think flat-earthism is a mental illness (i.e., delusion), developed when one has been lied to so much, that even the most self-evident truths become open to debate. Therefore, from flat-earthism comes, "Gravity has never been proven, etc, etc."
The flat earth insanity has to stop.
As it stands, you people are making fools of yourselves (and discrediting traditional Catholicism).
-
He doesn't even address any of the real substantial arguments one way or the other. He merely assumes right out of the gate that it's false. Sole intent of the author is to distance himself from something that he feels would be a stigma to the Church. Of course, they'd probably write the same kind of piece explaining away the Galileo affair. "No, the Church didn't condemn heliocentrism, just Galileo's disobedience."
Uh, no, he proves exactly that which he set out to prove:
1) Flat earthism was not commonly held by Catholics in the Middle Ages
2) Secondarily, following from this, there is nothing particularly Biblical about believing in it, and it is not a doctrinal or religious issue.
-
Despite Big Tech's attempts to suppress FE, people are catching on ... seeing how many people are out there attempting to debunk it.
I get the feeling you are giving yourself a pep-talk to make this nonsense more believable to yourself (which makes you culpable):
"Because they had not the love of truth, I will send an operation of error, that they should believe lying."
-
Despite Big Tech's attempts to suppress FE
They're not the ones promoting it?
Flat earthism was a controlled opposition response to the geocentrism movement that gained traction after The Principle (2014) https://youtu.be/CeJb0JIHNik docuмentary.
Mini-docuмentary about the docuмentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVUSDy_rO0
-
They're not the ones promoting it?
Flat earthism was a controlled opposition response to the geocentrism movement that gained traction after The Principle (2014) https://youtu.be/CeJb0JIHNik docuмentary.
Mini-docuмentary about the docuмentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVUSDy_rO0
Hahahahahahahah
One of the most ridiculous things Sungenis has ever said.
It's painfully obvious Big Tech censors Flat Earth. Type Flat Earth into YT and you will only see debunking videos. When I tried sesrching for specific FE channels and videos I literally couldn't find them even if I knew the title.
Sungenis is delusional.
:jester:
-
"Because they had not the love of truth, I will send an operation of error, that they should believe lying."
citation: 2 Thes. 2:11 (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L3.n54)
-
They're not the ones promoting it?
Flat earthism was a controlled opposition response to the geocentrism movement that gained traction after The Principle (2014)
:jester: Robert Sungenis would like to think this is about him. Flat earthers don't care about the Principle or Sungenis, or any other shade of industrial beige. The people who know the earth is not a globe care about the truth of creation, the veracity of scripture, the writings of Fathers of the Church, true science, reason and metaphysical reality. Also, that the globalists get exposed not just for lying about creation and stealing billions of dollars to saturate everyone with the lie, but for denying access to the truth by suppression.
-
One of the most ridiculous things Sungenis has ever said.
Robert Sungenis would like to think this is about him.
He's not the only one to make that observation.
David Nikao (http://):
…a movie called The Principle (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/) in late 2014.
Then shortly afterward the flat earth theory was aggressively pushed on YouTube and Facebook, to try to cover over the evidence, and to cause people to dismiss anyone who teaches that the Earth is geocentric.
"Those who don't know [recent] history are bound to repeat it."
-
1) Flat earthism was not commonly held by Catholics in the Middle Ages
How do you think the biggest global industry of the Middle Ages (i.e. sailing/shipping) operated? By use of the flat-land, north star navigation. Same navigation used today.
2) Secondarily, following from this, there is nothing particularly Biblical about believing in it, and it is not a doctrinal or religious issue.
That's highly debatable.
"Because they had not the love of truth, I will send an operation of error, that they should believe lying."
:facepalm: This quote relates to doctrine/religion, not unsettled science.
-
He's not the only one to make that observation.
David Nikao (http://):"Those who don't know [recent] history are bound to repeat it."
Another globe geocentrist. What a coincidence ::)
Just so happens to have a book against FE to make sure everyone knows he's not one of those idiots just like Sungenis.
Here's just a little bit to debunk this absurdity -> Re: Amazing how globe-earthers can get bent out of shape (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/amazing-how-globe-earthers-can-get-bent-out-of-shape/msg893192/#msg893192)
-
The flat earth insanity has to stop.
As it stands, you people are making fools of yourselves (and discrediting traditional Catholicism).
1. A scientific debate cannot discredit Traditionalism, which is Divinely created.
2. Even if Trad-dom is discredited (humanly speaking), why do we care? Everyone not a Trad (and even many Trads) believes in covid, so they're already crazy.
3. Many people I know who research this topic (mainly Trads) are searching for truth. God will lead us to the truth if we are sincere.
4. Science does not contradict Faith. True Trads will come to the truth at some point; Traditionalism isn't in danger.
5. Trying to shut down a debate is the essence of a matriarchy/communist mentality, which is contrary to how the Church treated Galileo.
6. Quit overreacting. People said the same thing about +W and the h0Ɩ0cαųst. If +W got behind flat earth, so would you.
7. Live and let live. FE isn't sending anyone to hell, so who cares?
-
He's not the only one to make that observation.
David Nikao (http://):"Those who don't know [recent] history are bound to repeat it."
Who cares about that guy, either? Timing was right for the truth to come out because technology exposed the liars. The fact that Sungenis got his toes smashed in the fray was his own fault for promoting the pagan globe now soundly debunked by regular folks as well as top professionals in the fields of science, flight, engineering, math, history and Christianity to mention just a few. What does Sungenis think about the globe now? Is it a ball, an oblate spheroid, or a pear? Can he send us a true video from space? Telephoto lenses are pretty sophisticated and I'm dying to see people walk upside down in real time.
-
1. A scientific debate cannot discredit Traditionalism, which is Divinely created.
2. Even if Trad-dom is discredited (humanly speaking), why do we care? Everyone not a Trad (and even many Trads) believes in covid, so they're already crazy.
3. Many people I know who research this topic (mainly Trads) are searching for truth. God will lead us to the truth if we are sincere.
4. Science does not contradict Faith. True Trads will come to the truth at some point; Traditionalism isn't in danger.
5. Trying to shut down a debate is the essence of a matriarchy/communist mentality, which is contrary to how the Church treated Galileo.
6. Quit overreacting. People said the same thing about +W and the h0Ɩ0cαųst. If +W got behind flat earth, so would you.
7. Live and let live. FE isn't sending anyone to hell, so who cares?
Who said "this flat earth insanity has to stop?"
That glober who is getting triggered so hard for losing human respect tells you a lot about the reason people believe in the 66.6° inclined, 0.666 ft/mi² curved and 66,600 mph rocketing ball. How interesting that 666 is embedded in the fabric of reality according to the ball earth theory.
BTW Mr. Glober, try adding up all the numbers corresponding to the letters (A=26, Z=1) in NASA and tell me what you get. What are the odds, am I right.
-
You appear to be unable to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I think flat-earthism is a mental illness (i.e., delusion), developed when one has been lied to so much, that even the most self-evident truths become open to debate.
"Self-evident"? Do you know what that term even means? Come on, Sean. There's nothing self-evident about the globe or there would be no debate. Unless you float around in space and can see the globe, it's not self-evident.
You appear to labor under the weight of several mental illnesses, the chief one being that if you don't like something, then all logic and reason goes out the window, and you begin tantrumming like a 10-year-old and throwing words like "self-evident" out there.
Get back to me with an explanation for how the Alps has been photographed from 700 miles by a non-FE photographer when it should be hidden by 45 miles of curvature, and we'll talk. Until then, just go sit down somewhere in a cozy chair to pout.
-
"Self-evident"? Do you know what that term even means? Come on, Sean. There's nothing self-evident about the globe or there would be no debate. Unless you float around in space and can see the globe, it's not self-evident.
You appear to labor under the weight of several mental illnesses, the chief one being that if you don't like something, then all logic and reason goes out the window, and you begin tantrumming like a 10-year-old and throwing words like "self-evident" out there.
Get back to me with an explanation for how the Alps has been photographed from 700 miles by a non-FE photographer when it should be hidden by 45 miles of curvature, and we'll talk. Until then, just go sit down somewhere in a cozy chair to pout.
There is no debate. Just a few crazies in denial of reality, because they have been lied to too much, and this psychological reaction is the adverse result.
-
How do you think the biggest global industry of the Middle Ages (i.e. sailing/shipping) operated? By use of the flat-land, north star navigation. Same navigation used today.
That's highly debatable.
:facepalm: This quote relates to doctrine/religion, not unsettled science.
Unsettled :laugh2::laugh1::confused::clown:
-
Get back to me with an explanation for how the Alps has been photographed from 700 miles by a non-FE photographer when it should be hidden by 45 miles of curvature, and we'll talk. Until then, just go sit down somewhere in a cozy chair to pout.
You've got it all wrong Lad, scientific theories don't have to account for all the evidence, they just have to be believed by people we respect. :jester:
-
Who said "this flat earth insanity has to stop?"
That glober who is getting triggered so hard for losing human respect tells you a lot about the reason people believe in the 66.6° inclined, 0.666 ft/mi² curved and 66,600 mph rocketing ball. How interesting that 666 is embedded in the fabric of reality according to the ball earth theory.
BTW Mr. Glober, try adding up all the numbers corresponding to the letters (A=26, Z=1) in NASA and tell me what you get. What are the odds, am I right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UkTow1RRo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyD8VIK032o
-
Who cares about that guy, either?
I don't know who he is, either, but he has made an observation of a fact ("1.3 Contra factum non fit argumentum [Against a fact you can't argue] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/axiomata.htm)."): Flat Earthism increased in prominence after the release of The Principle (late 2014, early 2015).
On How to Study (https://isidore.co/aquinas/DearJohn.htm):
Do not consider who the person is you are listening to, but whatever good he says commit to memory.
Another globe geocentrist.
Why do his views matter about the historical fact I bolded above?
-
Get back to me with an explanation for how the Alps has been photographed from 700 miles by a non-FE photographer when it should be hidden by 45 miles of curvature, and we'll talk. Until then, just go sit down somewhere in a cozy chair to pout.
The (lack of) curvature is the most easily calculated and simplest experiment to do, using modern cameras. The globe-earth "story" fails miserably.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDy95_eNPzM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyD8VIK032o
Buoyancy is a force…
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyD8VIK032o
(https://i.ibb.co/CJVHtrc/pacifier.jpg)
Ah, so Johnson resorts to the Jew paid shill "Professor" Dave (who took one science class before dropping out of school). "10 Things All Flat Earthers Say" = 10 Flat Earth Strawmen (he almost admits as much in the very title)
Still waiting for your refutation of see too far. I can post links to videos all day debunking Not-a-Professor Dave, some done by actual professors, as a fraud. Make your own arguments, Sean ... except that I know you have none, except for your puerile clinging to various pacifiers that you need to stay calm (see offer above).
Johnson is having yet another one of his meltdown. In fact, he's had a few lately if you add the Sister Lucia imposter scenario. And this is how he always gets when that happens.
-
I'll take just a brief second to debunk the top two false claims made by Sodomite Dave.
1) gravity is just a theory. It's admittedly a theory, and no one knows what it is or what causes it. Explanations from top physicists range from electromagnetic forces, curving of space time, the simple laws of thermodynamics (one recent proposal by a top physicist), etc. Even Neil de Grasse Tyson publicly admits that we don't know what it is. We simply have an observation and can measure it and put math to it, i.e. the rate at which things fall, but we have zero idea what causes it or how it works, despite Sodomite Dave's ignorant claims to the contrary. Indeed, the directionality of it is mere hypothesis, and the mythical attraction of masses on one another over a distance (something completely inexplicable) has never been proven or detected or explained. Directionality could be due to electromagnetism, flow of ether, the laws of thermodynamics, or any other such explanation. There's a top MIT professor on video teaching a class where he states that all the phenomena we observe on earth are due to electromagnetism, and by comparison the force of gravity is too weak to account for it. So dropout-after-one-class-non-Professor-Sodomite-Dave knows better than an MIT professor. Other REAL professors have put out videos debunking Dave's ignorance on other subjects outside of FE as well.
2) 8 inches per mile squared. Sodomite Dave is an idiot. Indeed, everyone admits that 8 inches per mile squared is an approximation of a more complex trigonometric formula, but it's been demonstrated to be accurate within a few feet out to distances of about 20 miles. Besides that, most FEs use various calculators to do actual measurements when considering the observations they've made. Moron Dave, that formula does NOT show a "parabola". Guy's either a total idiot or a liar. Most likely a combination of the two. While FEs throw the term out there for convenience, they use actual calculators to get the precise numbers when drawing conclusions about various observations.
So 0/2 epic fails from Sodomite Dave. If I feel like bothering, I'll expose the other 8 as well.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/CJVHtrc/pacifier.jpg)
Ah, so Johnson resorts to the Jєω paid shill "Professor" Dave (who took one science class before dropping out of school). "10 Things All Flat Earthers Say" = 10 Flat Earth Strawmen (he almost admits as much in the very title)
Still waiting for your refutation of see too far. I can post links to videos all day debunking Not-a-Professor Dave, some done by actual professors, as a fraud. Make your own arguments, Sean ... except that I know you have none, except for your puerile clinging to various pacifiers that you need to stay calm (see offer above).
Johnson is having yet another one of his meltdown. In fact, he's had a few lately if you add the Sister Lucia imposter scenario. And this is how he always gets when that happens.
Hmm: Projection and ad hominem, but no refutation.
-
Hmm: Projection and ad hominem, but no refutation.
Nothing to refute, baboon. Except I refuted the first two decisively above, and I'll get the others if I feel like it's worth my time to someone like you. You've not yet made an argument. I can post videos and articles until my fingers fall off from posting.
-
I'll take just a brief second to debunk the top two false claims made by Sodomite Dave.
1) gravity is just a theory. It's admittedly a theory, and no one knows what it is or what causes it. Explanations from top physicists range from electromagnetic forces, curving of space time, the simple laws of thermodynamics (one recent proposal by a top physicist), etc. Even Neil de Grasse Tyson publicly admits that we don't know what it is. We simply have an observation and can measure it and put math to it, i.e. the rate at which things fall, but we have zero idea what causes it or how it works, despite Sodomite Dave's ignorant claims to the contrary. Indeed, the directionality of it is mere hypothesis, and the mythical attraction of masses on one another over a distance (something completely inexplicable) has never been proven or detected or explained. Directionality could be due to electromagnetism, flow of ether, the laws of thermodynamics, or any other such explanation. There's a top MIT professor on video teaching a class where he states that all the phenomena we observe on earth are due to electromagnetism, and by comparison the force of gravity is too weak to account for it. So dropout-after-one-class-non-Professor-Sodomite-Dave knows better than an MIT professor. Other REAL professors have put out videos debunking Dave's ignorance on other subjects outside of FE as well.
2) 8 inches per mile squared. Sodomite Dave is an idiot. Indeed, everyone admits that 8 inches per mile squared is an approximation of a more complex trigonometric formula, but it's been demonstrated to be accurate within a few feet out to distances of about 20 miles. Besides that, most FEs use various calculators to do actual measurements when considering the observations they've made. Moron Dave, that formula does NOT show a "parabola". Guy's either a total idiot or a liar. Most likely a combination of the two. While FEs throw the term out there for convenience, they use actual calculators to get the precise numbers when drawing conclusions about various observations.
So 0/2 epic fails from Sodomite Dave. If I feel like bothering, I'll expose the other 8 as well.
It’s as though he didn’t even watch the video….just as the guy predicted.
But that won’t stop Lad (the classical language major) from teaching us revisionist physics.
-
Nothing to refute, baboon. Except I refuted the first two decisively above, and I'll get the others if I feel like it's worth my time to someone like you. You've not yet made an argument. I can post videos and articles until my fingers fall off from posting.
…and I haven’t the slightest doubt that you will!
What would be better, is for you to post your comments on the video site, and we can all tune in as you are refuted point by point🤔
-
Sodomite Dave's claim that gravity is not a theory:
https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics/Gravitational-theory-and-other-aspects-of-physical-theory
-
It’s as though he didn’t even watch the video….just as the guy predicted.
But that won’t stop Lad (the classical language major) from teaching us revisionist physics.
Refute my points 1 and 2. Your claim that I haven't watched the video means that you're either a liar or an idiot (not understanding the video).
Before making another idiotic post and embarrassing yourself, refute what I wrote in the rebuttals to 1 and 2 above.
There's nothing "revisionist" about it. It's actually understood that gravity is a theory. And it's been proven that 8 inches per miles squared does not show a parabola but is a reasonable approximation of the more complex trigonometric formula, and all FEs use calculators with the actual formula when commenting on their observations.
-
Sodomite Dave's claim that gravity is not a theory:
https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics/Gravitational-theory-and-other-aspects-of-physical-theory
You’re citing the Masonic Encyclopedia Brittanica?
:popcorn:
-
His point #3 is correct as the water find its level argument is invalid. I've never used that one. While his examples of water curvature on the small scale are equally invalid, if there's a gravitation force pulling water toward the center of the earth, there would be a curvature across long distances.
Where he's incorrect are 1) using examples of water droplets and 2) his false claim that "all" Flat Earthers use the argument. This Flat Earther (myself) does not.
-
Refute my points 1 and 2. Your claim that I haven't watched the video means that you're either a liar or an idiot (not understanding the video).
Before making another idiotic post and embarrassing yourself, refute what I wrote in the rebuttals to 1 and 2 above.
There's nothing "revisionist" about it. It's actually understood that gravity is a theory. And it's been proven that 8 inches per miles squared does not show a parabola but is a reasonable approximation of the more complex trigonometric formula, and all FEs use calculators with the actual formula when commenting on their observations.
No, no, no, Lad!
You got me all wrong!
You see, unlike yourself, I don’t perceive myself as the ultimate authority on everything I have an opinion on.
Rather, I prefer to listen to the experts, instead of the pseudo-fora experts.
So here’s what you need to do:
You start posting your idiotic, unqualified, incompetent responses on the video sites, and we’ll all tune in and see how you fare!
Have at it!
:popcorn:
-
Point 4, his assertion that people think vacuums "suck". Everybody refers to vacuum suction for shorthand, but everyone knows that it's due to the laws of thermodynamics pushing matter outward into the vacuum. So yet another false strawman. He merely states his "gradient" theory in half a sentence without proving it, but actual scientific experiments have debunked it. It's circular reasoning, as has been thoroughly debunked by people like Dr. John D (and actual Ph.D., unlike non-doctor-Dave). Gravity is too weak a force to overcome the force of matter pushing into the vacuum and the second law of thermodynamics.
So Sodomite Dave is 1/4 through 4 points.
-
Point 4, his assertion that people think vacuums "suck". Everybody refers to vacuum suction for shorthand, but everyone knows that it's due to the laws of thermodynamics pushing matter outward into the vacuum. So yet another false strawman. He merely states his "gradient" theory in half a sentence without proving it, but actual scientific experiments have debunked it. It's circular reasoning, as has been thoroughly debunked by people like Dr. John D (and actual Ph.D., unlike non-doctor-Dave). Gravity is too weak a force to overcome the force of matter pushing into the vacuum and the second law of thermodynamics.
So Sodomite Dave is 1/4 through 4 points.
Why are you yapping about this here, when you should be posting on the video site?
I think we all know the answer.
-
5 -- water on a spinning ball. Sodomite Dave is half right. While he's correct that demonstrations of spinning wet tennis balls in circles is meaningless, nevertheless, the rotation of the earth is admitted by mainstream scientists to create a centrifugal force that's sufficient to account for what they claim to be a 14-mile bulge at the equator. So there is a purported centrifugal force that can be shown by demonstration not to exist. Numbers are clear that the same masses should weigh less at the equator than in the far North due to centrifugal force, but experiments have show this not to be the case. Nevertheless, this is not even a point about Flat Earth proper but about whether the earth moves / rotates or remains stationary.
So I'll give Sodomite Dave a 1/2 on this point, correct that some of the "demonstrations" of the spinning web tennis ball are invalid, but he loses 1/2 for being unaware that there nevertheless should remain a real and measurable centrifugal force if the earth were rotating.
So it's at 1.5 / 5.
-
5 -- water on a spinning ball. Sodomite Dave is half right. While he's correct that demonstrations of spinning wet tennis balls in circles is meaningless, nevertheless, the rotation of the earth is admitted by mainstream scientists to create a centrifugal force that's sufficient to account for what they claim to be a 14-mile bulge at the equator. So there is a purported centrifugal force that can be shown by demonstration not to exist. Numbers are clear that the same masses should weigh less at the equator than in the far North due to centrifugal force, but experiments have show this not to be the case. Nevertheless, this is not even a point about Flat Earth proper but about whether the earth moves / rotates or remains stationary.
So I'll give Sodomite Dave a 1/2 on this point, correct that some of the "demonstrations" of the spinning web tennis ball are invalid, but he loses 1/2 for being unaware that there nevertheless should remain a real and measurable centrifugal force if the earth were rotating.
So it's at 1.5 / 5.
To the rest of the forum:
Note Lad’s cowardice. He’s quite content to yap on a trad cath forum about…..flat earth.
But to a scientific audience, he doesn’t dare!
-
6 -- moonlight is cold. Even Sodomite Dave has a momentary lapse into honesty in admitting that this point has nothing to do with Flat Earth per se. He then rants about there not being "controls". False. Many experiments have been conducted very scientifically and with controls. To counter this, instead of doing his own experiment and showing it, Dave draws a few cartoons, and then rants about people not knowing how to do science. OK, Sodomite Dave, why don't you do the experiment and show us instead of pontificating and drawing a cartoon. Another epic fail. I award you no points.
1.5/6 thus far
-
6 -- moonlight is cold. Even Sodomite Dave has a momentary lapse into honesty in admitting that this point has nothing to do with Flat Earth per se. He then rants about there not being "controls". False. Many experiments have been conducted very scientifically and with controls. To counter this, instead of doing his own experiment and showing it, Dave draws a few cartoons, and then rants about people not knowing how to do science. OK, Sodomite Dave, why don't you do the experiment and show us instead of pontificating and drawing a cartoon. Another epic fail. I award you no points.
1.5/6 thus far
See my previous comment.
-
7 -- rivers flowing up
While begging the question regarding the definitions of "up" and "down", assuming a globe earth, Sodomite Dave is correct on this point. In one sense, a ball surface would go down as it moves away from the observer, and the sense of "up" is due to a visual obstruction that would appear as a "bulge" between two distance points separated by curvature. So I'll give Dave this one ... despite the fact that, again, this is not something that anywhere near "ALL" Flat Earthers say. That's part of his strawman ruse, painting all FEs with a few bad arguments that you here repeated now and again.
2.5 / 7 score thus far for Sodomite Dave
-
8 -- flat earthers are confused about how it can be warmer in the Northern Hemisphere when the earth is allegedly farther from the sun.
100% Strawman. I have never, not once, having watched hundreds of FE videos, seen an FE make any kind of argument along these lines or even make this claim. So 100% Strawman fail.
2.5 / 8
-
9 -- flat earthers deride the "body of scientific knowledge" as "scientism"
I've almost never heard this particular term used, but it's demonstrable, often from the writings of the top scientists themselves, that they're often promoting an agenda even without evidence, often presenting theory (such as "evolution") as fact, when it's an absurd theory, and the theories of the scientific orthodox are constantly being debunked by other scientists. Sodomite Dave says we should "follow the science" ... like with the jab and other things. So, fail both because he's mis-defining what FEs say about mainstream science and because he's wrong that science is some body of objective truth that cannot be questioned. His refutation consists of, "Look, kids do science experiments in class." Really, Dave?
2.5 / 9
-
10 -- the claim that people have been brainwashed
Epic fail. It's provable fact that the masses have been brainwashed by the Jew overlords on numerous issues, not only about science, but also including history, religion, philosophy, transgendrism, and myriad other issues. Kids are brainwashed into believing that evolution is fact by showing them pictures of somewhat similar organisms. Every kid walks into school to behold the globe on the teacher's desk, and the very first science project everyone does is the styrofoam ball solar system. If the earth is not a globe, then this is indeed brainwashing and indoctrination.
So Sodomite Dave finishes the rant with a final score of 2.5 out of 10.
-
10 -- the claim that people have been brainwashed
Epic fail. It's provable fact that the masses have been brainwashed by the Jєω overlords on numerous issues, not only about science, but also including history, religion, philosophy, transgendrism, and myriad other issues. Kids are brainwashed into believing that evolution is fact by showing them pictures of somewhat similar organisms. Every kid walks into school to behold the globe on the teacher's desk, and the very first science project everyone does is the styrofoam ball solar system. If the earth is not a globe, then this is indeed brainwashing and indoctrination.
So Sodomite Dave finishes the rant with a final score of 2.5 out of 10.
pre·ten·tious
/prēˈten(t)SHəs/
adjective
- attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
"a pretentious literary device"
-
Buoyancy is a force…
Your are quite correct. Sodomite Dave, claiming to be a professor and an expert in science, puts his ignorance on display when he claims that buoyancy is not a force. It is.
-
Waiting for Johnson to refute even a single point that I made ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/af/17/92af17d06502f280e8bdc2e8d4f67974.jpg)
-
Waiting for Johnson to refute even a single point that I made ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/af/17/92af17d06502f280e8bdc2e8d4f67974.jpg)
Waiting for Lad to post on the video site, and watch him get destroyed.
:popcorn:
-
Lad and Sean,
We need to share some good wine and conversation. May God grant us such a kindness in this unspeakably-wicked age. Until then...Godspeed, my friends.
Eamon
-
Lad and Sean,
We need to share some good wine and conversation. May God grant us such a kindness in this unspeakably-wicked age. Until then...Godspeed, my friends.
Eamon
Personally, I would be up for it. But I live in Minneapolis, and Lad lives someplace in Ohio, and I have a vague recollection that you are way out West somewhere?
It gives me an idea for a new CI thread:
“CI Members I’d Like to Meet.”
-
https://rumble.com/v2a0sv4-the-10-things-all-flat-earthers-say-debunked.html
There are a couple weak spots here, but overall very good.
-
https://rumble.com/v2a0sv4-the-10-things-all-flat-earthers-say-debunked.html
There are a couple weak spots here, but overall very good.
That was a good video. Sean please put your bias aside and watch the video. Everyone was taught about a spinning ball earth as a child yet most do not question it. Now that some people have started asking questions; they get attacked, villianized, mocked, scorned, orchestrated, calumniated against and much more. All while and I remind you, that 'science' has been consistently wrong about many things that are now taken for granted as 'scientific fact'. If you can't ask questions then it's not science....
I will also ask a question to you. Do you think vaccines are safe? And do you think that the covid injection is a vaccine?
-
That was a good video. Sean please put your bias aside and watch the video. Everyone was taught about a spinning ball earth as a child yet most do not question it. Now that some people have started asking questions; they get attacked, villianized, mocked, scorned, orchestrated, calumniated against and much more. All while and I remind you, that 'science' has been consistently wrong about many things that are now taken for granted as 'scientific fact'. If you can't ask questions then it's not science....
I will also ask a question to you. Do you think vaccines are safe? And do you think that the covid injection is a vaccine?
One weakness in the video as that he doesn't really address the question of the directionality of objects moving toward the earth. He's correct that density and buoyancy do in fact trump the force of "gravity", and that things either descending or ascending in the air are the same phenomenon as when things descend or ascend in water, since moving through gas and moving through water are the same thing. There is, however, some force that determines the directionality, something that causes denser matter to proceed in one direction rather than the other. I personally think that it's somehow related to electromagnetism ... rather than some unknown attraction of masses upon one another at a distance. Mass is defined by the number of charged particles in a particular element (protons and electrons), so I'm convinced that it's this charge of matter that accounts for various things being attracted to one another.
-
I wonder if people in the middle ages could clearly recognize the earth's shadow without all the light pollution we have now? I was outside late with a friend under a clear sky last night, and told him about this SSPX article, and the mention of how people centuries ago may have been able to see the earth cast a moving shadow across the sky such that they could tell that the earth is a globe. Only like 5 minutes later he points out some drones. I think to my self, "yeah right, we've only ever seen one drone around here not several". I look up and see a line of Musk's Starlink satellites coming from the west before fading away overhead into the earth's shadow.
That is another real life experience proof for me that the earth is a globe. How do you keep weather balloons in a perfectly straight line and moving so fast at such a high altitude?