Yet, you keep coming back for more. :applause:

Actually, I hardly ever participate on Cathinfo much anymore because of inane conversations about flat earth.  Hard to take it seriously when this kind of stupid talk is popularized.  I came into this thread by chance, and because it was titled: What Do Cathinfo Members Think.  ...so this is what I think.  

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if flat earther people were plants in our community set up here to delititmize us and make us look crazy.  Lord knows, the FBI and CIA last week shown themselves not to be above such stiff.  Of all the things we should be talking about...you people engage in this navel gazing.  Can we talk about Pokemon, pogs, and Magic the Gathering next?  

Anyway, moving on.  Flat Earthers are insular and ignorable.  

.
So far, over half the members responding side with the spherical earth model. So there's your proof.
.

I thought it was significant that around as many say this topic should not be on the forum as believe in flat earth. 

https://www.olrl.org/lives/laboure.shtml
"As I was busy contemplating Her, the Blessed Virgin fixed Her eyes upon me, and a voice said in the depths of my heart: ' This globe which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.'

She did NOT lie.
Whole world.
The word "world" means UNIVERSE. LOOK IT UP.
Our Lady CANNOT lie
She said this globe REPRESENTS the WHOLE WORLD. The whole Universe.  The entirety of Creation. 

Again and again.  When taken as a whole, Scripture, the Fathers, the obvious, the literal, our senses, encyclicals, Catholic ancients like Enoch and Moses, Cosmas, science, math, all of it! These statements of Our most Holy Mother must never bring about the error of false science, or contradiction, but of truth.  There is no cohesive argument to the contrary.  We have proven, beyond doubt, that all these work in unison to bring about a greater good in battling the powers that be: the globalist agenda, scientism, false science, errors regarding earth and modern versions of its origins as well as the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  It all fits.  Its beautiful.  Praise God!

Awesome!

.
Flat-earthers are liberals and nothing gets under the skin of a liberal more than when they lose the popular vote.
.
So this thread was a good idea.
.

On a clear night, with a full moon visible, chat with somebody in the southern hemisphere (or northern hemisphere if you're from the southern hemisphere) when they also have a clear night. You'll both need good cameras with good magnification. Take pictures of the moon at the same time as zoomed in as you can get with a long exposure (preferably using a tripod). Once you both get good quality photos, send them to each other so that you can examine both at the same time.
Question 1:
Is their moon upside down from yours?
The answer to this will be yes. The reason for this is because you're looking at the same moon from the opposite sides of a sphere. Just imagine you were standing on top of a sphere and somebody was standing on the bottom and you were both looking at something in the distance. What you see would look upside down to them. This may prompt some people to say that the moon could simply be between the two of you. Fair enough. That brings us to question 2.
.
Question 2:
If I flip their picture of the moon upside down and compare the two pictures, am I looking at the moon from a noticeably different angle? In other words, can I see portions of the moon that they cannot see, and can they see portions that I can't?
.
The answer to both questions will be no. The pictures should be pretty close to identical in terms of the angle from which you are viewing the spherical moon. If the moon was in between the two of you and close to the earth, you should see sides of the moon that the other person cannot see.
.
Imagine an oversize lighter-than-air volleyball that has one half painted red. Now put that ball in between two people standing 50 feet apart at eye level where the red side faces one person and the white side faces the other. Let's say you're facing the red side. Now imagine that ball starts to float upwards slowly. When the ball gets to about 20 feet up, you'd still see mostly the red side, but you might get a small glimpse of white on the bottom from this angle. At 50 feet up you'd see even more of the white side emerging from the bottom of the ball. Eventually the ball would get high enough off the ground where the difference in your viewing angle is so minuscule that you'd both see close to 50% white and 50% red. Of course, you'd need a really huge ball to even be able to see it very well at that distance. Well, the moon is pretty big and works perfectly in this example. This is basic trigonometry and it tells us that the moon is extremely far away from us. Otherwise you'd be able to go to different parts of the earth and see different sides of the moon. Actually, if the moon was moving over your head close to the earth, you should see different sides as it passes over you, but you don't.
.
Question 3:
Do you see any stars around the moon in either picture you took?
.
The answer again will be no. It's not because the stars aren't there. It's because the cameras' exposures didn't pick up their dim light. This is exactly the same thing that happens when you look at pictures of the spheroidal earth from space. The reason you can't see any stars around the earth has more to do with the limitation of cameras than anything else. Do you really think that a government agency that can produce nearly flawless CGI images of the round earth on a daily basis would simply forget to add the stars to every picture? Stars would be the easiest part of that project!
.
This is one of many experiments you can conduct yourself to verify a spheroidal earth. There is no reason to take my word for it.
.

So damned tired reading you people talk about this.

And yet you continue reading. 

Nobody's holding a gun to your head to visit this obscure little subforum of CathinInfo.

I already pointed out that Our Lady proves the world was a globe she held one in her hand as she instructed the Saint HOW have a miraculous medal struck, SHE DID NOT HOLD A FRISBEE, END OF STORY.

Sounds like an inconsistent argument to me.  Those in favor of globe earth continue to say that the language of Scripture should not be interpreted as teaching about the natural world and now a symbol of a globe in a piece of religious art is to be construed as .... teaching about the natural world.  So was Our Lady "intending to teach" about the shape of the earth through this symbol, which could easily be understood as some kind of symbolic metaphor?  Let's at least be consistent with ourselves.  I for one don't approach theology that way, and I'm not going to read too much into this symbol.  Globe can simply be understood as a way of symbolically encompassing or encapsulating the entire world or the universe.  It's certainly not a teaching about physical science IMO.  People are too apt to find "proof" for their side everywhere but then explain away similar "proofs" from the opposite viewpoint.  If Scripture can't be taken for proof of flat earth, then this globe here cannot be seen as proof of globe earth either.

Again and again.  When taken as a whole, Scripture, the Fathers, the obvious, the literal, our senses, encyclicals, Catholic ancients like Enoch and Moses, Cosmas, science, math, all of it! These statements of Our most Holy Mother must never bring about the error of false science, or contradiction, but of truth.  There is no cohesive argument to the contrary.  We have proven, beyond doubt, that all these work in unison to bring about a greater good in battling the powers that be: the globalist agenda, scientism, false science, errors regarding earth and modern versions of its origins as well as the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  It all fits.  Its beautiful.  Praise God!

Scripture does not say what you claim, nor do the Fathers.  The book of Enoch is an apocryphal book that was not actually written by Enoch and it has no authority at all.  Neither does Cosmas.  He was not a Saint nor recognized as an important Catholic thinker by the Church.

There has been a consistent message throughout the history of the Church but it is the opposite of what you say it is.  You are rejecting the teaching of the Church.