CathInfo.com

I was talking to my parish priest about this thread yesterday. At first, he didn't really believe me when I told him that there are groups who argue that you can't be a good Catholic without accepting that the earth is flat. So I brought out my laptop, logged in and let him read.

To say that he was stunned is an understatement. He was very clear that the church totally, absolutely 100% accepts the mainstream scientific teaching on geography, geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy and all the rest. As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'

My PP is well connected with the Irish hierarchy, and he was able to tell me categorically that flat-earthism would be laughed out the door of the arch-episcopal palace in +Armagh, down the hill and cross country to the coast, where it would join with the snakes that the Blessed Patrick swept into the sea for us.

.
I did reply to questions about this video, but I can't find the posts now. Maybe the video was a different version (video number?), when it was more recently released, several months ago. But the one I commented on began the same way with the people walking down the stairs and the measurement from Miramar Beach to Anacapa island.
.
At the start, it begins with a very important inaccuracy, where it has the Camera Height at 3 feet. This is obviously false. You can easily see that the camera is on the sandy beach with rocky pebbles, high above the surf line. The camera might be 3 feet above the sand, but that place on the sand is at least 8 feet above the water level of the ocean, so the camera height is more like 11 feet, not 3 feet.
.
For the next 2 minutes, the video uses this fake beginning as a basis for drawing conclusions, but they're all fake because it started with a wrong elevation.
.
At minute 2 he could easily have had a helper hold a long stick vertically standing at the water's edge (in surveying it's called a Philadelphia Rod - see insert pic) going up to the line of the horizon, and then go measure how high that is (or read the markings on the rod). He doesn't do that because it would show that the camera's height is much greater than the 3 feet that he erroneously claims it is.
.

.
At 2:47, without explaining what's going on, he suddenly shows footage shot from the top of a hill somewhere and has, "I will compare with this image from 560 ft elevation view." Pause the video at minute 3:00 and pay close attention to the low point of the island on the right side, between West Anacapa and Middle Anacapa. You can clearly see the land of the islands coming to a low point and briefly touching the water line, which is the small channel between the two islands. This is the portion of the shot that he eliminates in a few seconds by scrolling up...
.
Then, to compound his error, at minute 3:13 you can see how he scrolls up the picture to eliminate the lower portion of his view, cutting off the bottom part of the island that you could easily see a few seconds before, and he pretends that's the water line viewed from a higher elevation at the beach. But it's not. It is his cropped picture that cuts off the part you could see plainly a few seconds before, at 3:00. Then the cropped picture wiggles up and down for all to see, and at at 3:32 he labels his arbitrary image "View from 560 ft. elevation" when it's not that at all. He just isn't showing the bottom 300 feet of the island!! He has falsified his own view to make it appear to support his bias. It's so obviously a deliberate distortion.
.
Then he says, "LET'S TRY SEA LEVEL" at 3:40, and starts walking down to the water's edge. At 3:57 (pause it to see) halfway down to the water, the top of a surfer's head is touching the horizon line at the distant island's base. That is the point at which the camera is 5 feet above the water, because the surfer's head is 5 feet above the water's surface -- he is standing on his surfboard with his feet at the water's level and he's about 5 feet tall.
.
At 4:03 he puts his camera down on the sand and you can easily see how the standing surfer out in the water is now with his head up against the sky. The surfer did not rise up, but the camera did lower down, and this lower angle of view changes the appearance of the surfer against the water. You can't see the water surface anymore because it's hidden by the breaking waves.
.
Then at 4:15 the same surfer is shown falling off his surfboard, so you know it's not fake. This is real footage, which is nice to see.
.
At 4:29 the wave washes up toward the camera and you can see the top of the water. The camera is obviously higher than the water's surface (mean sea level) or else you wouldn't be able to see the surface. The fact is, as the waves rush up the sand, the water moves uphill, and the furthest extent of the water's edge is ABOVE sea level by a few feet. This is always the case on the shoreline with breaking waves.
.
If he put his camera down at sea level it would get ruined by the water covering it up, and we wouldn't be seeing any picture at all. Like a periscope on a submarine that isn't quite out of the water yet or gets splashed by a wave.
.
All the way past minute 6 the camera shows views of the water's surface out to sea, proving that the camera is at 3' elevation, or even higher. But he pretends it's at 0, which is clearly false.
.
At 6:00 to 6:08 a surfer paddles past the camera's line of sight, with his head and body entirely below the water's surface in the distance. You would not be able to see that if the camera were at water level. The camera is above water level by at least 3 feet, perhaps 4 feet.
..
That video isn't working.
.

.
Thanks for this post Irish_Catholic.
.
It's interesting to see you mention the snakes St. Patrick cast out of Ireland. I recently read a cynic claiming that there never were any real snakes in Ireland but this legend is based on the historical reality that the saint got rid of all the druids, which are called "snakes" by allegory. What do you think of that? I'd like your reaction since you have a much better point of observation being located in the place of contention.
.
It's not hard to understand that your priest would be stunned. Anyone can observe the direction of the sun's movement by watching the moon in its first quarter phase as it approaches the west after sunset. You ought to tell your priest what flat-earthers say when confronted with this simple sight.
.
They say that the moon's light isn't coming from the sun but comes from inside the moon.
They say that the moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it.
They say the recent total solar eclipse (Aug 21st) was a HOAX perpetrated by NASA.
They say you can't measure the angle between the sun and moon because that's demonic to measure angles.
They say the sun does not set below the horizon and if you had a telescope you would still see the sun at all hours.
They say the sun and moon are two parts of a celestial battery and they are electric lights.
They say the sun and moon are the same size and the same distance from the earth.
They say sometimes the moon goes behind the sun but we just don't notice that happening.
They cannot answer why the sun and moon don't smash into each other if they're the same distance from earth.
They cannot answer why the sun always appears the same size when they believe it's so close to the earth.
They cannot answer why the sun's angle of rise and descent is perpendicular to the horizon at the equator.
They cannot explain how a sextant only works when used to navigate on a globe.
They claim that honest astronauts and navigators believe in a flat earth.
They claim the Church has always taught the earth is flat but cannot provide any examples of this fabled teaching.
.
They accuse anyone who shows how wrong they are of promoting "heresy" which BTW is directed against your priest!!
.