Is Papacy That Much of an Oracle?

Can you basically take "it was raining cats and dogs" from the mouth of a Pope to mean that one of the portents of the End Times is feline and canine actual animals falling down from the sky?

Vatican in Exile has a high ranking monk named Phil Friedl. He kind of does so a bit.

"Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him." (Condemned) DZ: 1105
Various Errors On Moral Matters
Pope Alexander XII
24 September 1165 (Anno Domini: AD)

All offices shall be vacant ipso facto [means by the very fact] by tacit resignation in the following cases: “If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic Faith;”(Canon 188 Section 4 | 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr. Woywood).

Followed by a meme image with "Pope Leo" speaking on dialogue with Muslims and Protestants.

Now, I have no beef with applying Canon 188 Section 4 to whether a man purported Pope is pope or not pope. And whether or not there is with "Leo" there certainly is with a predecessor "John Paul" a much graver indication of public lapse from the Catholic faith.

However, the other quote from an undoubted Pope is seriously mangled, in attribution and in context.

There is no "Pope Alexander XII" ... a rival to Pope Michael I was "Alejandro IX" in Argentina, I think he either stepped back or admitted it was a media hoax. He was a Feeneyite, by the way.

The latest undisputed pope Alexander is Alexander VIII. Now there is also a Pope Alexander VII who actually did condemn various errors.

2025 Dz 1105 5. Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him], if you cannot prove it.

ALEXANDER VII 1655-1667
Various Errors on Moral Matters *
[Condemned in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, and of March 18.1666
A. On the 24th Day of September, 1665

Denzinger EN 1980
https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxe.htm

And 1980 here seems to mean "after the modern Dz 1980" since the first item is 1981 Dz 1081. It's, along with the next one, against usury.

But what was I saying about "raining cats and dogs" and interpreting as if a Pope had spoken of the End Times, along with raining of stars and so on?

Well, the good Phil Friedl seems to take "Peter" here as referring to "the Apostle Peter or his current successor" ... and the fact seems to be, I'll check with Joe Heschmeyer, that it basically means "John Doe"* ...

Different legal codes of different languages involve different ways of discussing anyone whom the case may apply to.

In Spanish one may ask, I'm translating to English:

If Don Fulano lends Don Mengano 5000 maravedies, is Don Mengano obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal on part of the one exacting more in return.

In Latin, whether in moral theology or canon law, it would go like this:

If Peter lends Paul 5000 maravedies, is Paul obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal and mortally sinful on part of the one exacting more in return.

Let me be precise, this is obviously true if the sole reason the 5000 are payed back as 6000 is the fact of the loan. If it had been an investment loan instead, one could have agreed that the sum would grow or diminish in proportion to the value of the company invested in, like if Don Mengano / Paul has a specific kind of shop. Obviously, the 6000 correspond to a growth on the factor 6:5, and if the company had instead made losses, diminishing on a factor 4:5, Paul / Don Mengano would have owed only 4000 maravedies. That's NOT sinful. It's perfectly licit. If you take a real risk, you can merit a real profit. Peter or Don Fulano risked getting only 4000 maravedies back, and was lucky with the luck of the borrower and got 6000 maravedies back. Fine and dandy. No problem whatsoever.

The point is, however, that Peter and Paul would in this case not be very famous persons from Acts, and for Peter, from the Gospels, both also authors of Epistles. Latin has "Peter" and "Paul" because these are very common first names. Spanish has Don Fulano and Don Mengano because these are very uncommon (to non-extant) last names. The question was one in the context of the Inquisition.

If Phil Friedl wants to maintain it's germaine to his proposition, he is basically saying that a Pope mentioning "it's raining cats and dogs" (in a context like "if it's raining cats and dogs and you are outside all day, fasting rules are relaxed") would be making an apocalyptic prophecy.

However, do you know what strikes me as even more awkward and unworthy of a cultured Catholic discourse than the quote I just gave from Phil Friedl? §§ 283 and (as I recently added) 247 of the CCC. Wojtyla wasn't being incompetent in expressing the Catholic faith, he was competent in expressing something else, Scientism and overdoing ecumenics with the Orthodox. I would say on a level which very much is incompatible with expressing the Catholic faith.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVIIth Lord's Day after Pentecost
20.IX.2026

* In context, denouncing John Doe as a heretic would mean doing so to the Inquisition or to the curate.

Il y a 21 ans, j'ai croisé la frontière entre Charleroi et Lille

Il y a 21 ans, j'ai croisé la frontière entre Charleroi et Lille · Qui dit pas que la soupe est chaude, s'il se brûle la bouche, il est malhonnête (dicton "Yugoslave", pays qui n'existe plus) · À Mme / Mlle Z, d'une assoc. · Quelques trucs aujourd'hui · Le Muss qui m'aggressait aurait pu être simplement instable

Depuis je suis resté en France (sauf quelques jours en Italie et Monaco en 2007 et moins qu'un mois en Belgique, Allemagne, Pays-Bas en juin 2023).

J'étais SDF depuis un plus qu'un an. Je ne m'étais pas accoutumé à prendre ça comme une humiliation, comme la preuve d'un échec de ma part (l'enchaînement vers mars 2004 qui m'a privé de logement n'était pas si facile que ça à prévoir), car je ne m'étais pas exposé à des logements d'urgence sous des conditions fortement humiliantes.

Je suis resté SDF depuis. Et la plus grande cause est le nombre de personnes qui, une fois qu'elles commencent à s'intéresser à moi (ou doivent le faire car un membre plus jeune de la famille l'a fait) imaginent que ma première réaction devait être de me reconnaître en échec et ma seconde devrait être de chercher un soutien, quitte à y sacrifier mes libertés. Genre, de cette hérésie :

1. Nous avons admis que nous étions impuissants devant l'alcool - que nous avions perdu la maîtrise de notre vie.
2. Nous en sommes venus à croire qu'une Puissance supérieure à nous-mêmes pouvait nous rendre la raison.

Ôtez le mention d'alcool, car il y en a qui comprennent que je ne suis jamais devenu un ivrogne, et misez fortement sur la perspective collective qui, pour les athées en AA, constitue cette "Puissance supérieure" ... c'est à peu près ce qu'on voudrait que je me propose de la part de certains. Pour eux, même si je ne me saoûlais pas, et ne le fais toujours pas, il doit y avoir quelque échec, comparable à devenir ivrogne ou tomber dans la folie.

Ces gens là m'ôtent sinon toute au moins partie de ma contrôle sur mes démarches (et illustrent par là que personne de toute manière a une maîtrise à lui seul sur sa vie, ne pas l'avoir n'est pas un échec moral).

Hier, anniversaire d'un voyage entre Bruxelles et Charleroi, j'ai deux fois croisé des gens de St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. L'abbé, je pense qu'il s'agit de Chautard, venu dans le quartier où je me trouve, n'a pas voulu me parler (et je ne lui ai pas demandé une bénédiction non plus), et une paroissienne dans le bus m'a parlé.

Une fois qu'elle savait que je suis toujours Chrétien (je me croisais en passant l'église) et que j'étais ex-paroissien de la paroisse, elle avait montré un certain intérêt de savoir pourquoi j'avais quitté la paroisse. J'ai voulu tout d'abord répondre sur le plan des principes, et j'ai évoqué St. Robert Bellarmin, plus précisément je pensais à De Romano Pontifice II.29 (non, je ne connais pas la citation par cœur, mais "comme il est licite de résister à un pontife qui aggresse le corps ..." c'est quand même souvent cité dans la FSSPX).

Elle trouvait étrange que je parlais de St. Robert Bellarmin. Étrange ? Elle était peut-être de la campagne ou grandie dans la paroisse ? Cette dernière chose. Pour pas mal qui comme adultes trouvent leur chemin vers la FSSPX, qu'ils y restent ou qu'ils passent ailleurs, St. Robert Bellarmin, De Romano Pontifice II.29 est ou a été dans le passé, assez incontournable. Quand je le cherche en anglais, ma première trouvaille est d'ailleurs un écrit par le feu abbé Cekada.*

Et Cekada nous apprend que St. Robert parle d'un pape moralement méchant qui donne des commandements méchants, pas de quelqu'un qui enseigne des hérésies. Sur ce dernier, c'est en chapitre 30 qu'il dit qu'un tel est automatiquement déposé (à supposer qu'il était jamais même devenu pape). Mon propre idée sur la question était d'ailleurs (sans avoir en tête tous ces faits) que si ça pourrait s'appliquer pour résister à une hérésie, ce ne le pourrait que pendant un bref délai. Passé ce délai, si la personne n'a pas changé d'avis, on ne peut pas même faire le bienfait du doute qu'elle se serait précipitée, on doit conclure, soit qu'elle n'était pas celle d'un pape, soit que l'ordre n'était pas celui d'une hérésie. Sans de vouloir poser une limite exacte, je pense que par trois ou deux papautés entre 1976 et 1988, Monseigneur Lefebvre aurait dû faire autre chose que de continuer à "résister et reconnaître" ...

Mais, ce matin, je me trouve devant une autre perspective sur la demoiselle qui trouvait ma réflexion étrange. Peut-être le problème était que moi je parlais de St. Robert, moi qui suis un SDF. Or, avant de devenir SDF, j'avais été étudiant (et mars 2005 est à peu près quand je lâche le plan de le redevenir dans une autre faculté). 5 ans d'examins avec des très bonnes notes, sept ans de présence sur les lieux, une vie sociale un peu réduite (on n'a pas une paroisse St. Nicolas à côté à Lund), donc du temps à bien étudier les questions hormis mes études qui m'intéressaient, dont bien entendu la théologie.

"Un SDF ne peut pas faire ça."

Dit qui ?

SDF n'est pas une catégorie définie par un certain parcours d'éducation, c'est une catégorie administrative définie par le seul manque de logement permanent. Comme il y a des chômeurs de divers d'éducations (ils sont définis par le seul manque de revenu par leur travail, n'ayant ni une entreprise à leur compte, ni un emploi dans une entreprise), ainsi des SDF. En fait, un chômeur qui touche l'ASSEDIC, après quelque temps on peut l'obliger de sortir de sa catégorie pour chercher un emploi dans une autre, mais si un SDF ne touche pas d'allocation, il n'a pas non plus à subir des conditions pour les toucher. Y compris celle de sortir de sa propre catégorie socio-professionnelle, depuis à peu près mon arrivée en France celle-ci est l'écriture, à l'exclusion d'un retour aux études. Oui, en 2005 et 2006 il m'est aussi arriver à chanter dans la rue, comme en 2004, mais en 2006, ma voix s'est cassée, et au lieu d'offrir du son, j'offre de la lecture sur internet, en montrant un URL de site.

Or, ce matin, une dame m'offre 5 €, un billet, mais pas sans de me raconter une anecdote. Elle a une fille de 40 ans, mais qui à l'époque avait 16 ... ça devait donc être en 2002. La fille avait reçu un billet, l'avait ensuite donné à un SDF, et avait vu l'SDF au bar en train de prendre une bière. La dame réfléchissait qu'on n'aurait pas le droit de faire ça, de prendre une bière dans le bar quand on n'a pas de logement. Il m'arrive à imaginer que des gens qui ont ce genre d'attitude prohibitif envers les SDF pourrait être derrière mes échecs, en ayant toujours un mot à dire genre ...

"Un SDF ne peut pas faire ça."

Ou, dans ses mots :

"Un SDF n'a pas le droit de faire ça."

Pourquoi ?

Prenons d'abord la bière au bar. Je peux comprendre l'idée que chacun (qui peut payer ou pour qui on paie) a le droit de prendre une bière au bar. Je peux comprendre l'idée qu'un homme ayant une famille à charge ne puisse pas payer une bière avant de payer le lait pour les enfants ... un SDF n'a le plus souvent pas une famille à charge. Je peux comprendre l'idée qu'il a ce droit s'il ne se saoûle pas. C'est d'ailleurs la mienne. Je peux comprendre l'idée qu'il n'a jamais ce droit, parce que la bière serait haram (c'est l'idée des Musulmans, carrément pas la mienne). Je ne peux par contre pas comprendre l'idée qu'un SDF en tant que tel manquerait le droit, simplement parce qu'il est SDF.

Qu'il puisse y avoir des priorités rationnelles, qu'on peut devoir manger avant de boire une bière, notemment au bar, je veux bien. Mais pas qu'un autre, y compris qui aura donné l'argent, puisse fouiller le détail de ces priorités. Si l'homme avait déjà mangé ? Si davantage de nourriture aurait été nuisible et si la bière équilibrait justement la digestion et le métabolisme (pour moi, avoir une pinte avant de me coucher et pisser bien, ça m'a aidé contre des nycturies et insomnies, désolé aux Français qui trouvent l'évocation même dégueu, mais c'est un fait). Ou si le billet avait été disposé d'abord en nourriture et ensuite dans la bière ? Ou si quelqu'un d'autre avait donné aussi ? La seule chose que je sais est que la demoiselle de 16 avait donné le billet et ensuite vu l'homme au bar en train de prendre une bière.

Il peut y avoir des gens un peu niais qui ont eu cette attitude par rapport à mes une pinte par soir (souvent beaucoup moins cher qu'au bar). Mais il peut très bien aussi y avoir eu des gens qui ont fait une réflexion analogue, par rapport à une vraie dépense d'argent et une habitude assez penchée. Je parle de mon usage d'internet. Or, on parle très à tort de "dépendances comportementales" dans le sens que, la bonne définition est "habitude" et le bon ou le mauvais d'une habitude se définissent, non pas comment elle est forte, mais si elle aide ou non à faire une bonne vie.

Imaginons que mon usage d'internet était pure dissipation, j'aurais peut-être alors dû il y a longtemps mettre une halte. Mais si je débats l'origine du langage humain avec un Justin Roe** sur FB, je fais aussi un post, pour que le débat soit consultable, comme l'a fait Platon avec les dialogues de Socrate.*** Dans ces conditions taxer mon usage d'internet de dissipation, c'est de parler d'un boulanger qui par manque d'énergie soulage le froid sur le chaud de ses fours. Mais ses fours, ils font du pain avec le boulanger. Et l'internet, ça fait des textes avec moi.

Une énième tentative de "me faire comprendre" était passée hier quand un homme parlait de gens au Singapour qui se jetaient sur des jeux d'argent. Or, chaque dollar singapourien dépensé autour d'une roulette donnait exactement une chance de rafler le pot. Un joueur d'argent n'est pas capable de gagner quoi que ce soit sur une dépense faite il y a un an. Un écrivain d'internet a par contre un capital qui s'accumule, pas juste de dépenses. Mais en mon cas, un capital qu'on m'empêche de valoriser, en m'entourant à droite et à gauche de gens qui prétendent qu'un SDF ne peut pas être écrivain° ou que la dépense devant l'internet serait l'égal d'un jeu d'argent. Je pensais d'ailleurs que cette niaiserie venait d'un psychiatre ou psychologue ayant fait ses "observations" à Hambourg. Là, il n'y a pas de cybers, on me l'a dit au moins, avoir un accès d'internet assez piètre coûtait 6€ par l'heure ou 1 € les 10 minutes et c'était dans le contexte d'une salle de jeux. À Paris, il y a des cybers, je peux avoir un accès très bon pour 1 € / h si je paie 100 € à la fois, ou 1,40 € / h si je paie 70 € à la fois, et l'accès me permet réellement de faire de l'écriture et aussi de faire des écoutes de vidéos, ce qui soulage par rapport à la meute qui veut toujours juste vérifier si je vais bien, et me donne une impression trop pénible d'être en train de prendre une responsabilité collective par rapport à moi.

J'avais un bon plan pour me sortir, mes investissements d'alors ne sont pas gaspillés dans le vent d'une loterie qui ne permet pas de réutiliser les numéros au prochain tirage, non, mes textes sont encore en ligne. Au nombre de plus que 14 000 et avec un taux de lecture de bientôt 8 millions de pages-vues. Sur le compte blogger actuel, les tout premiers posts vont encore compter :

Creationism vs. Evolution, considering Thomism, Biology, Church Fathers 325 vues (en anglais) Chromosome numbers (first published on Communities dot com) 245 vues (en anglais) Käns igen ... 275 vues (suédois) Dahlins ordbok (wikipedia-artikel, den enda jag redigerat på svenska) 340 vues (suédois) L'enfant-roi derrière la misère d'école? Non, au moins pas seulement 149 vues Usury, definition of 198 vues (en anglais) Παιδόφιλος; Ἐγώ; 5488 vues (en grec ancien°° et commentaire en anglais en dessous : je vous prie de ne pas juste transscrire le titre, surtout si vous ne savez pas qu'en grec ancien le sémicolon [;] vaut le point d'interrogation [?]) Jag har förståelse för vidskepliga atheister ... 158 vues (en suédois) Missing the Primary Questions. 603 vues (en anglais, commentaire en suédois) Ancient Sea Scorpion ... (news with comment) 516 vues (en anglais)		Kanada von Österreicher entdeckt ... (Links ...) :) 216 vues (en allemand, commentaire partie anglais, partie néerlandais) Si vous avez des problèmes avec la psychiatrie ... 359 vues "I giovani sono il futuro ..." (breve commentario) 182 vues (en italien) "Generous Orthodoxy" defends fallibilism? 213 vues (en anglais) Interêts financiers dans les fausses diagnoses: 187 vues Septem artes et leurs annexes 170 vues Old News, New News, Good News (link) 180 vues (anglais) My reputation in Aix ... (link to Q&A) 197 vues (anglais et français) Septem Artes et leurs vertus ... 171 vues lui et moi, c'est pas pareil 141 vues
(325 + 245 + 275 + 340 + 149 + 198 + 5488 + 158 + 603 + 516 + 216 + 359 + 182 + 213 + 187 + 170 + 180 + 197 + 171 + 141) / 20 = 515.65 en moyenne par post
Théologie et philosophie 464 vues (en anglais) Karyogrammata 2057 vues Minor messages on English Crea-vs-Evolu series 608 vues What I did not write, and where you can find it 857 vues Why is teaching evolution so IMPORTANT? 1010 vues		Tykhon and Pius XII ... 352 vues Those REAL Old Jamborees ... 259 vues If you are creationist, that means you are ... 282 vues But believing in Noah and his sons makes you a racist, right? 281 vues Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism 1641 vues
(464 + 2057 + 608 + 857 + 1010 + 352 + 259 + 282 + 281 + 1641) / 10 = 781.1 en moyenne par post
Essercizio per Priya X 147 vues Essercizii per Priya I - X 130 vues Piano Jam Some More 163 vues Minuetto per chitarra (o per viola da braccia) 179 vues Guitar touchin' blue (-grass?) 318 vues		On the octaves of the Nychthemeron 482 vues (en anglais) Octaves and other pure intervals 537 vues (en anglais) Schenker meets Couperin in Hypodoris 326 vues avec (new scan) 2140 vues Why is the tritone bad? 357 vues (en anglais) Game of avoiding the tritone: From modes via first twelvetone to major and minor 299 vues (en anglais)
(147 + 130 + 163 + 179 + 318 + 482 + 537 + 326 + 2140 + 357 + 299) / 11 = 461.63... en moyenne par post
Verse drama today 456 vues (en anglais) Lloyd Chudley Alexander, mémoire éternelle 415 vues versifikation 393 vues (en suédois) Diverses questionnettes de philologie 374 vues Le Chocolate ... hein? (prénez-en une cuiller) 312 vues Patois, argot ou langue littéraire - z'ont tous une structure! 686 vues Milk and Gollum, and Nostratic M-L-Q 538 vues (en anglais) "Antigone's flaw" 276 vues (en anglais) Tyskans kasus 253 vues (en suédois) Scott McCloud - The invisible Art 329 vues (en anglais)		On the "grey" of grey-friars ... 278 vues (en anglais) En tout art ... 250 vues From Jesus to Coelho 241 vues (en anglais) Escapisme 263 vues Tiffany 198 vues (en suédois) Review of an adverse criticism 207 vues Con-sti-tu-ci-o-na-li-sta 164 vues (en espagnol) Some Inklings' Children's books' statistics 534 vues (en anglais) To stop a journey=to mend a day 248 vues (en englais) Les Montiliens sont d'où? 282 vues
(456 + 415 + 393 + 374 + 312 + 686 + 538 + 276 + 253 + 329 + 278 + 250 + 241 + 263 + 198 + 207 + 164 + 534 + 248 + 282) / 20 = 334.85 en moyenne par post

Depuis que je suis à Paris (sauf les premiers semaines après le soir à Lille, en 2005), j'ai pu écrire d'une manière plus soutenue. Index LVII, Chandeleurs à Pâques 2026 et Index LVII, Candlemass to Easter 2026 en témoigne, ainsi que Production January 2026, February 2026, March 2026.

Ce n'est pas parce que tel réseau a été insistant pour me donner le temps d'échouer tout en bloquant les occasions de réussir qu'il faudrait baisser les bras maintenant !

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
Mercredi de Pâques
8.IV.2026

* Contre Cekada: un homme privé peut bien avoir le droit et devoir de résister à l'ordre d'un pape mauvais. Il y a à Palmar de Troya des gens qui auraient peut-être dû noter ça par rapport à certains ordres de l'homme qu'ils prennent pour leur premier pape (après "Saint Paul VI, prisonnier dans le Vatican"). Avant de conclure que cet homme n'était pas le pape, je l'avais sû juste sur des moniales. Cet homme n'a par contre pas prétendu définir que ces choses étaient licites.
** Challenge not met, mon statut en haut et l'a linea E, continué sur Spinoff Debate with Justin Roe (il est le seul d'avoir réagi sur le fait que j'avais blogué le débat, et personne, ni lui même, n'a demandé d'avoir le nom masqué).
*** Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics a eu 4 440 vues et St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person 4 200. Dans le même débat, Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate) n'a que 1131 vues et OrchOR - what is that? 510.
° Des propos réellement tenus devant moi : - "On ne peut pas être écrivain et sdf." (sic dixit)
°° Puisque le grec ancien est la langue source pour certaines terminologies, les termes transcrits en grec ancien ne prennent pas automatiquement le sens de leur terminologie, ils peuvent être entendus selon l'étymologie. Un cinématographe en français utilise du film en matériel transformé pour figer des images qui, joués à une certaine vitesse, donne le grand écran. En grec ancien, un κινηματγραφος pourrait vouloir dire quelqu'un qui décrit le mouvement. Par exemple Aristote, Philopon, Buridan ou Newton. Le verbe φιλέω ne veut normalement pas dire ἔραμαι et une ou un παῖς (enfant) ne veut pas dire une κόρη (adolescente).

L'évangile de St. Marc nous donne une parole du Christ

La voici, chapitre 16 :

Et voici les miracles qui accompagneront ceux qui auront cru : en mon nom, ils chasseront les démons ; ils parleront de nouvelles langues ; ils prendront les serpents, et s’ils boivent quelque breuvage mortel, il ne leur fera point de mal ; ils imposeront les mains aux malades, et les malades seront guéris.

Est-ce qu'une approche littéraliste donnerait raison au feu George Went Hensley ?

Est-ce le propre de CHAQUE Chrétien de prendre des serpents ?

Le problème n'est pas le littéralisme. Le problème est l'interprétation du pluriel τοῖς πιστεύσασιν / ceux qui auront cru. Si certains signes les accompagneront, il s'agit bien de la collectivité. Pas de chacun.

Et prenons les miracles un à un ... littéralement.

• en mon nom, ils chasseront les démons : les 72 l'avaient déjà fait
• ils parleront de nouvelles langues : le jour de Pentecôte, certains dont parle St. Paul dans l'épitre aux Corinthiens, St. François Xavier.
• ils imposeront les mains aux malades, et les malades seront guéris : les miracles de guérison ont encore lieu dans l'Église, parfois à l'occasion d'une Extrême Onction, où, effectivement, le prêtre impose ses mains au malade.

Deux autres sont plutôt rares, je ne connais qu'un exemple de chacun :

• ils prendront les serpents, : St. Paul sur Malte. Une des signes qu'il était un vrai Apôtre, un vrai croyant. En plus, dans ce même sens, St. Pierre le nomme "notre frère" ...
• et s’ils boivent quelque breuvage mortel, il ne leur fera point de mal : je note que πίωσιν est subjonctif de l'aoriste, je pense avoir vu le subjonctif du présent, il y a quelques années, sur Nestlé Aland, mais je n'ai pas la référence, ce qui voudrait dire aussi "s'ils se mettent à boire" ... St. Benoît allait être empoisonné par une coupe de vin empoisonné, il se mettait à boire dans le sens qu'il bénissait la coupe, qui, du coup, éclata. Si le bon texte est πίωσιν, il pourrait y avoir un autre accomplissement.

Mais la totalité de ces signes reste avec l'Église catholique. Et non avec chaque Catholique individuelle. La confusion du collectif avec le fidèle individuel n'est pas le propre des littéralistes protestants, c'est le propre des Protestants tout court. Un Protestant qui se garde bien de prendre des serpents dans la main, et qui clame "Mr. Hensley, fallait pas prendre ça à la lettre" (ce qui n'est pas la réponse catholique), qui en plus prend pas mal d'autres trucs de la Bible "pas à la lettre" (et pas en allégorie logiquement soutenue non plus !) va néanmoins faire la même faute exégétique réelle sur le mot de St. Jean, chapitre 5 :

Je vous ai écrit ces choses, afin que vous sachiez que vous avez la vie éternelle, vous qui croyez au nom du Fils de Dieu.

Il s'adresse à la totalité des fidèles, pas à chacun, il arrive qu'un tel ou tel n'est pas dans l'état de grâce, et qu'il mourra dans ses péchés et sera damné. Pour chacun, il y a l'expectation raisonnable que s'il reste avec l'Église, s'il demeure fidèle à ses enseignements, s'il essaie de se remettre en grâce après une chute (par la confession) il sera en état de grâce le jour qu'il meurt.

Ces Protestants vont donc prétendre que chaque fidèle n'as pas juste une expectation raisonnable, mais un savoir, et que, parce qu'il s'agit de vie éternelle, il ne pourra pas la perdre. L'Église ne peut pas la perdre et ceux qui demeurent dedans au moment de mourir sont par cette vie guéris de la mortalité le jour de la résurrection, tandis que les autres résurgiront à honte et avec une vie corporelle pire que la mort. Mais non, ces Protestants prennent "afin que vous sachiez" comme la forme polie d'un "afin que tu saches" et "vous avez, vous qui croyez" comme forme polie de "tu as, toi qui crois". Leur erreur n'a rien de littéralisme et il est totalement le même erreur que celui du feu Hensley.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ste Radegonde, Reine
13.VIII.2025

Pictavis, in Gallia, sanctae Radegundis Reginae, cujus vita miraculis et virtutibus claruit.

PS, en certain pasteur Parr qui prend ses distances avec Hensley essaie deux autres mobiles de le faire. Voici : a) les versets 9—20 seraient probablement pas génuines, b) Jésus s'adressa juste aux apôtres, pas aux Chrétiens de tous les temps. La solution a) est contraire à l'enseignement de l'Église catholique (26 juin 1912, consulteurs Fulcran Vigouroux et Laurent Janssens, Q II "negative ad utramque partem") et la solution b) ne fait toujours pas la distinction — je n'ai pas encore vu toute la vidéo, entre fidèle individuel et l'église en communauté, mais en revanche, galvaude "ceux qui auront cru"./HGL

PPS, pour les anglisants, j'ai aussi un commentaire soutenu à la vidéo de Parr : Allen Parr is Right We Shouldn't Try to Handle Snakes (But Overall Wrong on Mark 16:17—18)

Could All Scientists Get NATURAL LAW Wrong?

Can a Continuous Miracle Be Possible? Why Would God Suspend His Laws for Matter Day after Day? · Could All Scientists Get NATURAL LAW Wrong?

No, not if they could get the shape of the unverse or what rotates around what wrong. Not if they could get tectonics and fossils of the past wrong.

Could they be wrong about natural law?

Depending on what dimension, the answer is both yes and no.

Scientists clearly are very well trained to spot natural laws (in the kind of objects that are supposed to obey the kind of law the scientists are studying, physicists won't study bacterial reproduction, biologists aren't the go-to on tidal forces). They are excellent at mathematically testing whether the law actually is a law with a specific mathematical formula or not. They are absolutely goodish about finding the exact formula and if the units don't match one to one as in Ampère, Volt and Ohm, to find out the constants of mathematical pairing.

They are also absolute rubbish about finding out what natural laws actually are.

And the reason is, they have no training at all to go about the discussion.

They usually assume, natural laws are causes.

They usually assume that any cause operating outside those laws would be an intruder into the causes.

They presume the causes are causes because they are laws, and that therefore intruding causes wouldn't work, since by definition, they are not bound by these laws.

They presume that even if this cannot absolutely be proven, this is the safest and most practicable assumption, since it promises an uniformity of outcome that we desire and shield us from the fanaticism that belief in truly omnipotent and free entities (like God) could engender.

And they are wrong on each and every point.

Natural laws are not causes, they are descriptions of causes as viewed from certain angles. In reality as we live it, apart from arranged experiments, different causes are always interfering with each other, so most situations more than one natural law would be applicable.

If God exists and angels exist, they are not intruders, they are part of the plot, of the same plot as natural law. In fact, God created the causes that follow the laws, and angels manipulate them on conditions similar but not identic to how we manipulate our bodies.

The reason for being a cause is not being bound and determined by law, but being real. This is also the case of agents that are free.

Denying this neither saves us from an irrational universe we cannot make head or tails of, nor from religious fanaticism, since Atheists have their own.

And if a certain scientist is a bit more cultured on this question, this is according to current procedures not supposed to be the subject of his papers (remember, they are only about which regularities are natural law, or how they work out under certain conditions), and so he is forced to forego influencing other scientists on these questions.

This means that even Christians who are scientists, who did their catechism years ago but undergo scientific formation all the time to not slip behind and to keep up with new stuff, will have an incomplete grasp on how Christianity differs from this usually so called "scientific world view" or how this differs from the actual science that is being done. Let alone non-Christians. I suppose Alex Bunardzic falls into this latter category. Just to show you that I'm not making a straw man about what scientists tell each other about the nature of science or of natural law, I'll quote him:

To avoid such extreme, non-productive views, we must allow for mental activities (for the mind) to enter the picture as a causal factor. This causal factor has the power to determine how reality actually works. And while science recoils from such views, and supernatural posits a mind that is outside of the natural order and is thus capricious (and can only be effective if it somehow manages to suspend the laws of nature), the middle ground can be established by introducing the mind as one of the significant factors (if not the factor) in establishing the natural order of things.

I looked up first a google on "supernatural causes not scientific explanations" (no quotation marks in the search) and found his Science and Supernatural — Two Extreme Views. On Medium.

The fact is that metaphysics is not primarily about what he calls "metaphysical phenomena", that the primary investigator for these things, i e as "showing off" the metaphysical reality as different from what he calls "science" and I would call materialistic naturalism, are not investigated by experiments, but by historic accounts, and that his compromise doesn't clear up very much. There is already a world view in which mind is THE factor in reality, though not the only one, and it's Thomism.

Meanwhile, lots of Catholics eager to present the Faith or some aspect of the Faith to him will water down the Thomistic views of how things work. That's doing the transmission and propagation of the faith a clear disservice, and I don't think it's doing him very much of a service.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Simeon of Jerusalem
18.II.2025

PS, quoting St. Thomas on miracle being "outside the order of any created nature" and each of such having its order:

I answer that, A miracle properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature. But it is not enough for a miracle if something is done outside the order of any particular nature; for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature. So for a miracle is required that it be against the order of the whole created nature. But God alone can do this, because, whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created nature; and thus it is not a miracle. Hence God alone can work miracles. [from I Pars, Q 110, A 4]

If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... · To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... · If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

I don't hold with killing cats. I do not relish the death of cats. I borrowed the nod at a popular saying from Lee, a guest poster with Introibo.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Dangers of Randonautica
By Lee, Monday, December 12, 2022
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-dangers-of-randonautica.html

Who refers to St. Thomas Aquinas, in two quotes.

I will now take the quotes, not from Tour of the Summa, but from Summa Theologiae online. As in the Tour, I will quote only the corpus of each article on curiosity, which is II-II, Q 167.

Article 1. Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?

Here I will intersperse my quotes with own comments.

I answer that, As stated above (II-II:166:2 ad 2) studiousness is directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in the pursuit of knowledge. Now we must judge differently of the knowledge itself of truth, and of the desire and study in the pursuit of the knowledge of truth. For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1, "Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin.

On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue." On like manner, those who study to learn something in order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of Jeremiah 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored to commit iniquity."

So, a scientist who forgets his maker or a man trying to learn things about bondage or psychiatry ...

Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways. First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [Epist. xxi ad Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls."

We live in a society in which so many have so few duties incumbent on them.

The example given by St. Thomas was apt about his own day, with many priests of whom more than one could have easier made his salvation if remaining a layman. Looking at you, Andreas Capellanus! (Yes, he was a contemporary of St. Thomas, as a chaplain obviously a priest and made a kind of Ars Amandi).

In our day, one could rather complain about priests forsaking Shakespear and Tolkien to read psychology or Biblical criticism ...

We may presume that those using Randonautica usually do not have duties they neglect to go on their random randonnés (walks). Especially, as going on a walk is also a duty, to the bodily health.

Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."

And Oedipus and Orestes got into huge trouble by listening to them.

Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things."

This sounds more like a cue to throw out science books than to throw out randonautica.

Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Sirach 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Sirach 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."

Something people like Thomson Lord Kelvin and Rutherford should have thought of before proposing to search out the age of Earth without looking into Genesis 5 and 11.

Now, here is article 2. Please note that the man translating something as "sight-seeing" is very far from the current usage of that term in so doing. It is about seeing "spectacula" - dramas.

I answer that, The knowledge of sensible things is directed to two things. For in the first place, both in man and in other animals, it is directed to the upkeep of the body, because by knowledge of this kind, man and other animals avoid what is harmful to them, and seek those things that are necessary for the body's sustenance. On the second place, it is directed in a manner special to man, to intellective knowledge, whether speculative or practical. Accordingly to employ study for the purpose of knowing sensible things may be sinful in two ways.

Let's see.

First, when the sensitive knowledge is not directed to something useful, but turns man away from some useful consideration. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 35), "I go no more to see a dog coursing a hare in the circus; but in the open country, if I happen to be passing, that coursing haply will distract me from some weighty thought, and draw me after it . . . and unless Thou, having made me see my weakness, didst speedily admonish me, I become foolishly dull."

Well, here the problem is not so much the look at the spectacle - and when Tour of the Summa translates sight-seeing, that is bad. Deliberately to seek out a sight of something quiet is different from vetting an appetite for cruelty (as St. Augustine did in his youth), or to deliberately seek weighty thoughts, but forget them because a distraction dulls one. By the way, fatiguing someone to cure him from "curiosity" can dull him too. Georgina Kirrin, back in the age when she preferred to be called George and when Tim was alive, didn't allow Tim to chase rabbits. I think those were more plentiful than hares, in Cornwall.

So, the problem is actually double here, for St. Augustine:

• he risks backsliding into enjoying cruelty to animals (as he had done more frequently in his youth, and even if in this case the immediate perpetrator is also just an animal) - well, he no longer risks that, he's in heaven, but I mean he risked it then and those like him now risk it now;
• not keeping concentrated on a thought directed to piety and to the edification of others. (Likewise, no longer a problem).

The problem is not being captivated by a random sight, which is not cruel, and when one is not neglecting important thought for it.

Secondly, when the knowledge of sensible things is directed to something harmful, as looking on a woman is directed to lust: even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction. on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.

Let me highlight two quotes here:

even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction.

Like the guys who inquire busily into my hours spent on internet, consider every second on a youtube as the vice of curiosity and detract from my capacities as a writer and as a Catholic one?

Involves both shrinks, I shouldn't wonder, and priests who would have done better to imitate Andreas Capellanus, scandalous as he was, than to have psychology studied at seminary!

Now, the other thing is, pretty apt about Randonautica.

on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.

The sustentation of one's nature involves the sustentation of one's mental nature. And part of that is not seeing just the same things every day.

This being the purpose of Randonautica, one cannot say the purpose is wrong. But are the means? Lee evokes four cases of unpleasant surprises.

The app has as many as 10.8 million users as of July 2020, gaining popularity amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as restrictions have been lightened.

Now, four unpleasant surprises is pretty low among 10.8 million users. Therefore, one cannot assume it is demonic on this account. Are there more? Certainly. How many more? Probably not 100 as drastic as this one.

In their questions page, Randonautica's creators have said that if the app generates coordinates inside a private property, it is a violation of their terms and conditions to trespass. In addition, Randonautica has also received allegations that the app is used for human trafficking, which its creators have denied, saying that data collected by the app are anonymous. It also ensured that the app is not designed to violate religious customs, saying that "the app is simply a tool. Just as a knife can be used either to prepare dinner or to cut somebody."

Now, the creators cannot absolutely know from their own actions whether someone else can be abusing their app for human trafficking. Just as the highways in the seventies could not be kept responsible for the crimes of Ted Bundy. Who abused the custom of hitch-hiking. My ma taught me some good things about hitch-hiking, like walking up to gas stations, and talking to the people you want a ride from. However, Ted Bundy could be charismatic, but even so, I think he more often picked up victims very quickly, with less time for getting an impression, who were walking along the way with their thumb up. When he didn't just grab, as with his last victim.

However, as to human trafficking, some place types could be especially attractive to girls, and if the trafficker puts himself in waiting there, and also uses the app ... may God avert it.

Furthermore, in two of the four cases evoked by Lee, Randonautica can have saved a life. Even if Mykena didn't call the help that saved the bleeding person from dying, it is possible and even probable someone else was also directed to that place and did call the ambulance. And the person who had a shop burned down was saved. The story doesn't tell what kind of shop it was, and I actually cannot find the story.

Now, is using Randonautica a vain observance? Here I will have to quote, not St. Thomas, but Lee.

How does it specifically know things so hidden as to be able to lead people to an exact location, with no possible history of stored data that leads to such things, which cannot be traced, such as expired driver's license from 15-20 years prior?

The app didn't know it. God did. As far as I am concerned, the connexion between using the app and finding the licence, is God's providence.

I personally believe that the app itself has some form of demonic power. Why? It has been known to bring about bad luck in peoples lives who use it obsessively.

If you go on random destinations very often, sooner or later you can come to a dangerous one.

It has the ability to know exact locations without any foreknowledge; a symptom of possessed people.

A software doesn't know exact locations, but stores them. Precisely as google translate doesn't know language, but stores language data. Stores and combines, in a way showing how statistic coincidence rules very much of correct translation, but very far from all of it. I have seen the Swedish word "uppståndelse" translated (by Bing) as "commotion" in the context of Easter where the correct expected translation is "resurrection" - or a Spanish poem from past centuries praised the Blessed Virgin as "preciosa" - meaning precisely as in English "precious - and a translator used the more usual meaning in modern colloquial Spanish, namely "funny" ...

It lures people away from belief in God or the devil by trusting it more.

The last person who started using it as a Christian, clearly Orthodox, not just believing in a God who is good, but also that this God has created an angel which recreated himself into the devil, and who ended up losing faith over using this app is who? Because, I have never heard of one. Indeed, by God's providence, the app could lead someone to a Church or a Christian bookstore and therefore to God.

It becomes like a god.

It does? How many other things do? Is each inherently bad because some so abuse it?

Lastly, it could lead to somebody's death if the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is indeed a danger of any innocent walk. And some of Ted Bundy's victims were doing their studies ... with studousness/

Even if the "intention" is good it can be a path leading right to Hell.

We can agree that dying in a car accident is death, and dying in a car accident in the state of mortal sin if Hell. Now, some Pilgrims on the way of Santiago have died crossing a certain road, because the paths with the yellow arrows point across this road (or did back in 2004). Is it mortally sinful to walk to Santiago too?

Gaucelmo died on arrival. He is honoured as a saint, accoridng to my memories from 2004, even if I can't find him on Spanish wikipedia. A woman was murdered in I think 2015 or 16 by faked yellow arrows leading her to the killer.

So, is walking to Santiago a mortal sin, because there are risks?

Staying locked inside during a confinement has its risks too. In France, wife murders skyrocketed during the first confinement. So, has the prospect of taking walks to unseen corners of your neighbourhood after it saved lives? Probably.

Let me give a parallel. You may be a celibate man, you may suck at cooking, or have no time to do it, and you may have the means to eat at restaurant every day. Is it mortally sinful to roll dice over which restaurant to use on each particular day? Mind you, on a Friday, one would pick Sushi Bar over Mongolian Barbecue without any dice, for obvious reasons, but on a day when meat is allowed? Could it lead to your death? Well, if it directs you to the restaurant where you get dangerous food poisoning, yes. Does that make it sinful? No. Variation in diet is healthy.

According to the Theologians McHugh and Callan, vain observances are described as:

Let's see if it fits.

(a) those (things) by which one puts into use vain ceremonies or objects in the expectation that they will secure certain desired effects, or puts an exaggerated confidence in lawful rites or sacred objects;

There is no vain ceremony in randomising, if the desired effect is a surprise or "a change" - it is a natural means to that end, not a quasi-supernatural ceremony for it. Case dismissed.

(b) those by which one directs one's life through fortuitous and impertinent happenings in the belief that they have the power to influence one's fortunes favorably or adversely.

We do not deal with this when the fortuitousness itself is used as a means to improve one's mood. Given that some people are now doing breast surgery because they carry Georgina Kirrin's child and teen quirk to the cube of too far, improving moods may be very vital these days.

This form of superstition is like divination by omens; the difference is that in using omens one chiefly seeks for knowledge of the future, while in observing chance events one chiefly intends the direction of one's conduct. Examples are found in persons who fear to make a journey on Friday or to begin any important affair during the dark of the moon.

Fridays and darks of the moon are not fortuitous. People avoiding important affairs during the dark of the moon may not fear, and I am not sure St. Thomas did not do it. Seeing 666 as a bad omen is arguably one preservation against rapidly and willingly taking the mark, and I do wait a little before logging in if the time is 13:32. I prefer making a prayer up to 13:34, since 1334 is two times 667. The next and last paragraph of this essay is on line 144 in the html. Was it bad to put two previous paragraphs toegether (not very separate logically) to avoid it going past 144?

And unlike this kind of thing, randonautica is about not fearing journeys and about affairs of free time, how to spend an afternoon. Again, case dismissed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Advent
17.XII.2022

Population Growth and Famine, Not Linked

Does population growth lead to hunger and famine?
April 03, 2018 by Joe Hasell
https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-and-famines

Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Conspiracy Theories · New blog on the kid : Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Back when I was arguing at helgon.net, I was more than once attacked verbally by one "J. Strauss" who systematically went about reducing what I actually said to a conspiracy theory and who then proceeded to rip apart that conspiracy theory.

This left me at a double disadvantage:

• 1) it took attention away from the line of argument I was actually pursuing.
• 2) his ripping apart of what he conceived as a conspiracy theory of mine (or pretended to do so) was not water tight, so I argued what conspiracies would after all actually be possible. This may have given some (and if he was not dishonest and theatrical did leave him) with the impression I was into the conspiracy theory in question.

I am - with some caution - into the conspiracy theories of Lyndon LaRouche and of Henry Makow.

I am not in, but also not against, the moon landing conspiracy theory.

It so happens, whether by chance, by algorithms of quora (very probable), by prayer by someone praying for me to be "healed from" conspiracy theories (I am not considering "delusion" as a medical symptom, unless you believe you are God - this is not adressed to Our Lord - or you believe you are a poached egg, I believe the opposite view is part of a medical conspiracy, which is trying to dominate the world by chosing certain ideologies and memes to stamp as "delusions", and I believe it is heresy to accept that kind of definition) (not improbable either and not diminished by probability of previous, since efficacy of prayer and of natural or mechanical circumstances are not rivals, but concur through God's providence to same events), or even by a conspiracy of some computer admin (less probable, but far from impossible), I DID get across the moon landing conspiracy and a supposed debunking of it.

Here is a link to the debunking:

Clavius : Scale
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

Now, I will copy paste quotes from two arguments of theirs, the first of which I agree with (there was no LARGE conspiracy, arguably), the second of which I disagree with (the equipment being good does not equate the moon landings were actually made).

I will comment on each in detail.

Against large scale

The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

My agreement

Yes.

I find it very improbable that thousands of people were in a scam and no one actually lost interest or was clumsy.

Against small scale

At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

...

In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

My disagreement

The reply presupposes that the conspiracy theory is adequately analysed by a claim the only motive for a scam is lacking equipment for a moon landing.

Let's give a few alternatives.

1 "they had no equipment for landing"

disposed of. With a small scale, minimal scenario, the contractors needed to be producing good equipment.

2 "they had no equipment for passing Allen Belt"

I have heard this has been debunked by a study in how much radiation the Allen Belt would involve and what screening the back then equipment would provide.

I have not yet seen the study.

3 "actual lack of equipment was not the issue at all"

Here we come to some interesting alternatives:

a) secret geocentrics or not, they wanted to prove heliocentrism

This touches on one motive very common among Moon Truthers, these being also Geocentrics.

I believe that as a motive for a Geocentric to be Moon Truther, this is inadequate. Why? Because the Moon Landing and seeing Earth turn around its axis from Moon does not prove heliocentrism true. If the Heliocentrics can say that the ordinary view, shared by billions according to God's providence, can be a misleading and parallactic one, seeing sth else move because of real movement being in observer or in his point of observation, obviously a real landing on the Moon, a real film of Earth turning around its axis taken from Moon in time lapse, is not a proof of this, since we as Geocentrics can say that the view shared only by some very few was a parallactic one.

If you photograph the Eiffel Tower from a chopper flying around it, you will see a film of an Eiffel tower turning around its own axis. This means that such a film is NOT proof the Eiffel Tower is not fixed in the ground, and similarily a film with Earth turning, taken from the moon is NOT proof Earth is turning.

This is why a solid refutation of all Moon Truther claims, if available, would not shock me in the least : it is no argument against Geocentrism, which I am defending - as here I am defending it, and me, from the charge of depending on Moon Trutherism.

But as an explanation on why NASA would have faked a landing, this starts to gain some ground.

Since films of Earthy turning on own axis, taken from moon, have been so good at promoting the idea that Earth is turning on its axis, NASA would have had a motive for faking the landings, even if thinking landings could not be made.

Also - if landings were made, this could have been a motive for actually making them. But if for some reason NASA did not dare, well, then NASA could have faked them too.

b) they wanted to prove Newtonian physics, spec. gravitation

One of my earlier reactions against Heliocentrism back 15 years ago involved the observation that certain parts of Newton cannot be proven exclusively from Earth.

Continuation of uniform movement has not really been proven even by Moon Landing and the rest of the space program.

Newtonian gravitation, heaviness being equal to substantiality - a thing I consider blasphemous - has however some support if the heaviness of the astronauts was attracted to the heaviness of the subjacent Moon and this kept them from falling down to Earth as the locus of heavy things.

While the acceptance of Moon Landing and Space Program as factual has not involved a full fledged acceptance of Newtonian view, it has involved some modifications, and only by claiming Moon Fake could I return to a completely Aristotelic theory of gravity, of Earth as centre of all heavy things.

So, suppose some Geocentric in the years previous to launching of rocket and landing (fake or real) had claimed somewhere (even in a mental hospital) "Heliocentrism in the modern form builds on Newtonian gravitation, but our experience on Earth uniformly supports Aristotelic gravitation" (which it does), someone eager (in a Masonic way) to vindicate Galileo and Newton against Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas could have come up with an idea of faking a moon landing in which astronauts' positions are maintained at least 362 600 km above Earth* without falling down, as a proof that heavy bodies like those of the astronauts are attracted to nearest body which is much heavier rather than to Earth, and being afraid of being wrong and not just risking lives but exposure by a real try, might have preferred a fake success.

This is not what I believe, I have other ideas on how to avoid the blasphemy of identifying heaviness and substantiality, lightness and absence of substance, namely considering heaviness to be a quality of nucleic matter and lightness of the much more massive surrounding etheric matter. So, I have not accepted taking lightness as absence of susbtance.

But while I do not believe Moon Landing is necessarily false, I find a belief such as my previous one, if expressed anywhere everso discreet, could have promoted a faked refutation. By people at NASA who could not foresee how one successor of such, namely me, would get around the intellectual challenge.

Some people really are in deep hatred of all aspects of Catholicism, including Scholasticism, and top men at NASA are likelier to be Anti-Scholastics than Pro-Scholastics or even Thomists.

c) they wanted to hide some other Moon Landing

In Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis speculates about a landing of men not on Moon, but first on Mars, then on Venus. In the final part, there is a kind of note of spiritual powers - of evil - being at the moon.

What if a real moon landing has already happened by witchcraft, or in ways where landing place was likely to reveal spiritual powers, this is known to a few, and this needed "debunking" in advance of any leak, even if a fake debunking, by arranging an alternative, heavily promoted and popularised, view of what a Moon Landing really would look like.

d) they had the equipment but didn't trust it

And so they faked a landing rather than did a real one they could have made.

So, of the possible motives 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, the Clavius team have exposed motive 1 as incompatible with a very small conspiracy.

They are free to provide - and I will also promote, if remaining in freedom - their refutations, if any, of possible motives 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. So far and on that page, they have not done so yet.

There is another, somewhat disturbing, aspect of the refutatation of a big conspiracy, as given by Clavius:

Quotes

No evidence of threat.

Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.

No posthumous revelations.

Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.

No Boy Scouts.

Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.

Comment

There is another threat than death, which will take care of very many, and be more chilling than death to many : psychiatry.

If Moon Truthers are widely promoted as being "delusional", one man who really was involved, really knew of a fake, really tried to spill the beans, back in the 70's when psychiatry was stronger (it's trying to regain some strength, I am afraid) could have been stamped as "delusional" about his past activities.

I was born in Vienna, when my mother was "written at" Södertelge. In my earlier passports, it was marked "födelseort : Wien, födelsehemort : Södertälje" and these were translated as place of birth, administrative place of birth. In my latest one, Södertelge is suddenly my place of birth "tout court". Will someone try to stamp me as delusional for claiming to be born in Vienna?

At a process I was at, I mentioned "slutstycke" and "osäkra", things denoting parts of gun and making it ready to shoot, when talking of how I had dealt with hand gun of a policeman. It was questioned how I could know about these things. The answer is, I did military service at the back then regiment Lv4. The medical papers from my service there had somehow disappeared, because it was said by some doctor, "no, he can't have done that, we would have the medical papers" - when will I be stamped as delusional, if it has not already happened, for saying I did military service?

Psychiatry is a very terrible means of silencing opposition, since it is very uncomfortable, discomforts both immediate and by trauma can be protracted over years, and on top of that the victim is discredited.

So, how do we know there was no threat and no one did try to spill the beans?

To this latter one could reply that I have no right to just theorise such a thing, otherwise anyone could make such an abstract claim.

But on the one hand, I am not so much claiming as - so far - giving a possibility. It is Clavius who are set on saying Moon Landings are not a fraud, Moon Truthers are wrong. If they rely on a huge negative, it is perhaps for them to have better proof than just "I haven't heard of anyone trying to spill the beans, at least".

On the other hand, now I will make a claim of one man perhaps trying to spill the beans. There was, but I no longer find it, a youtube clip of a man confronting Armstrong with "you know you didn't go to the moon, you are lying, repent".

I wonder if the clip went down and he went to mental hospital? ***

Well, sorry, our time has the technical capacity of faking the film footages, and also of faking a consensus of no spilled beans, by locking up someone who is trying to do so.

While I am not a Moon Truther per se, I cannot any more just claim they are lunatics who are claiming the impossible.

Even if joining a witch hunt against conspiracy theorists about the moon would land me with, not restored credibility, but being a little less "discredited" in the eyes of people like "J. Strauss", whatever his real name may be. He is anyway lead singer of The Morlocks - and is Anticatholic. Or was last time I checked, which is a while ago.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Raymond Nonnatus
Mercedarian
31.VIII.2017

* = 225309.1943 miles ** Link to description of The Morlocks, caution, material unsuitable for children and for teens on one of the disc covers. Click here or don't. Or here: http://www.morlocks.net/ (same warning applies). Or wiki. *** Supposing he was not an ex insider, but just a very fanatic Moon Truther pestering one of the guys he considered as bearing false witness to the world, even then such a handling of him would not be justified on my view - at all.

Update: some people seem to amuse themselves by trying to stamp me as generally bad at verifying and falsifying information. I was today - 1.IX, next day from previous - given an information about French President Macron being homosexual, living a double life. As you may know, there has been similar information about Michelle Obama being a tranny. Well, there is a reason I did not used that one before seeing the actress who had said so had died in ways suggesting murder - and even then I cautioned. The reason is not I am for Obama, it is because I am against baseless rumours.

A denunciation which is followed by possibly mysterious death of person denouncing is a base - if the death was really a murder.

And a self denunciation by a defector is a base - if there are no other reasons to doubt Schnoebelen, like his being published, presumably with ordinary and exclusive contract, by Chick Publications. And vague about who ordained him ("Old Roman Catholic" is probably "Old Catholic", but a misnomer if so).

Well, a google in "Macron homosex" is actually giving as first hit a ... denial.

It seems this denial came handy as getting published after he was elected and had to deal with citizens, while the original rumour having been published in same paper before election found an update but no actual denial, when he was competing for among other things homosexual votes (some might have been favourable to Marine, since she is against Islamic degree of homophobia). But that is a far cry from him actually being one sodomite, as was verbally proposed this morning.

Now, Gala has published the denial so Gala has cleared Macron. Perhaps those who try to stamp me as bad at judging reliability would like to take this as occasion of a denial (with proof) by me, and perhaps, instead of going on such rumours, they would like to actually argue over any particular point where they think my judgement has been poor? Or are they of less integrity than Gala?/HGL

Pour les français : idéologie et religion

D'abord, que dit la wikipédie sur ce thème d'idéologie?

Une idéologie est un système prédéfini d'idées, appelées aussi catégories, à partir desquelles la réalité est analysée, par opposition à une connaissance intuitive de la réalité sensible perçue. De tels systèmes considérés comme idéologiques existent dans les domaines politique, social, économique et religieux. Une idéologie est souvent la dimension culturelle d'une institution sociale ou d'un système de pouvoir. Une idéologie est typiquement imposée d'autorité, par un endoctrinement (enseignement) ou de façon imperceptible dans la vie courante (famille, media). Une idéologie dominante est diffuse et omniprésente, mais généralement invisible pour celui qui la partage du fait même qu'elle fonde la façon de voir le monde.

On peut distinguer dans une idéologie les dimensions :

• cognitive : dogmes, croyances (« c'est ainsi ») ;
• morale : jugements, valeurs (« c'est bien ; c'est mal ») ;
• normative : normes (« il faut ; on doit »).

À l'origine, le terme d'idéologie fut créé par Destutt de Tracy pour tenter de fonder une discipline qui étudie les idées pour elles-mêmes (la mémétique, si ses axiomes sont corrects, pourrait être une branche ou dimension de cette étude). Mais ce sens s'est perdu en faveur de la notion de système d'idées doctrinaire. Le terme tend à prendre un sens de plus en plus large, et est parfois employé pour sa seule connotation péjorative en vue de dénigrer une école de pensée adverse, qu'elle soit ou non dogmatique.

Ça sonne un peu comme ce qu'on appelait autrefois une religion.

G. K. Chesterton aurait appelé ceci une religion.

Une religion peut être "laïque" ou "séculariste".

La mienne ne l'est pas, je suis Catholique.

Ceci dit, il y a des gens qui considèrent leur "religion" comme étant le Catholicisme et leur "idéologie" (s'ils utilisent ce terme) comme étant autre chose. Pour eux, la confession catholique est en réalité inférieure à leur vraie religion.

À moins de parler d'égoïsme comme une religion, car je suis assez égoïste, ceci n'est pas mon cas. Je ne pose ni sécularisme, ni modernité, ni science audessus de la religion catholique, et quand à "la raison", pour moi raison veut dire une faculté mentale qui peut avoir justement divers idéologies ou religions comme habitus, et non pas une idéologie alternative à "cléricalisme" ou "fondamentalisme".

Pas mal de gens commencent leur approche de moi sur le malentendu que ma confession catholique serait en-dessous de par exemple tel idéologie nouvel âge ou tel autre idéologie modernité occidentale : ce n'est pas le cas.

Encore d'autres, voyant que je traite ma religion comme une idéologie (c'est à dire comme une vraie religion, pas comme une confession en-dessous d'une idéologie par exemple maçonnique ou humaniste) me prêtent des passions religieuses qui ne sont pas les miennes, une dévotion à laquelle parfois j'aspire, et parfois n'aspire pas, ou même une dévotion à laquelle je n'aspire pas tout court.

Je crois en ma religion, quel que soit pour l'instant mon niveau d'attachement émotionnel. Et j'y crois pas comme en "ma religion", comme si elle était une chose personnelle, mais comme en la Vérité révélée par le Christ, vrai Dieu et vrai Homme. Pour un croyant des sciences, ça serait abusif de parfois ne pas croire à l'Héliocentrisme parce que l'attachement émotionnel aux scientifiques est pour l'instant pas très fort. Pour moi ce serait abusif de ne pas croire au Catholicisme les jours que mon amour pour Dieu est faible ou non-existant.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Vendredi de la
Première Semaine de Passion
7.IV.2017

Does the Bible Say That Emotions Are Deceitful?

I saw a little passage on CMI, which seemed to suggest that, including a Bible quote which late Westerners are perhaps not the best equipped to understand.

Gary Bates

Now, the point of this article is not to say that these ideas are in themselves necessarily right or wrong. Some might actually be very good at initially meeting people’s needs, or overcoming the perceptions of old-fashioned stuffy churches, and thus, be relatively successful at getting heads in the door. But one often finds that if this becomes the ‘main’ focus of the church, their teaching ministry tends to lose emphasis. For example, many churches (whether conservative or charismatic) have huge choirs or a contemporary band with correspondingly many musical items. This reduces the usual teaching or sermon time—meaning that the focus is not on teaching.

The reality is that many large churches, in particular, suffer a high exodus rate and many leaders have honestly told me the struggle to keep their youth once they start college/university. That is, there is an ongoing turnover. An entertainment-driven focus can obviously help people to feel good about coming to church. It can be fun and give them a bit of a ‘spiritual high’, but we all know that such highs don’t last. Once it becomes the norm, the tendency is to move on to somewhere else to try and experience the next ‘high’. In fact, the Bible has warnings about following the heart too closely. Jeremiah 17:9–10 says:

Quote

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways … ”,

In context, Gary Bates is suggesting that Jeremiah is describing emotion as deceitful.

But Jeremiah does not say "emotions", he says "the heart".

This is in Biblical language a wider concept than emotions - just as emotions is a wider concept than passions, if anyone should cite St Thomas Aquinas against "giving emotions free reins". No, one should not give passions free reins, but they are not the whole substance of emotion, this latter also includes the reason and will which is reining them back from certain things.

And reason in St Thomas is not what 19th C. describes as "cold reason" or "sober reasoning" either.

Certainly, a syllogism should be unclouded by any passion of individual love or hatred or anger which sways the judgement on the truth of premisses.

This is especially true about history, where partisan moods are likely actually to achieve the swaying of good judgement, from time to time, which is why Thukydides or if it was Herodotus used a phrase which I think it was Tacitus who translated as "sine ira et studio". Without being angry at Nero or rooting for Agricola ... not sure if he achieved that.

It should not be "unclouded by emotion" as if the premisses or methodology were likeliest to be truest and surest which have the least emotional appeal.

Mathematics should not be shunned, even if they have little emotional appeal to many, but prior to mathematics, there is a judgement on what one is to count about.

After being displaced as temporary teacher of Swedish and German at a school for 7 to 9th graders, I was given hours in maths.

One student (a good young man, but not very apt for studies, and I love having participated in giving him hours off from schoolwork and to be spent as apprentice cook, hope he is a chef now) had failed to get the answer right on a problem involving the area to be painted on a rectangular door with a round window. I suppose he simply didn't like the idea of counting that, since in common life, he would not need to, he would have so much paint to start with and if anything was left after the door was painted, he would save it for next task.

Or he could have been tired. Not for me to figure him out, that is for God and for his wife (hope he's married now). I am suddenly afraid I even cofused two different students, one who went chef, one who was in that class, but I don't think so, even if it is 20 years ago. Well, perhaps doesn't matter. I am not teacher there anymore.

Anyway, he got the answer wrong : he asked, I looked at his work, and saw the problem.

Say the door was 7 ft 6 in by 4 ft 8 in. Say the window had a radius of 4 in.

(7 ft 6 in * 4 ft 8 in * π) - (4 in * 4 in).

What is wrong here?

He has calculated first the area of an elliptic object with narrower width 9 ft 4 in and wider width 15 ft. Then he has deducted from that the area of a tiny square, 3.14 to 3.15 times smaller than the round window should be.

What he should have done was of course:

(7 ft 6 in * 4 ft 8 in) - (4 in * 4 in * π).

I don't think it is very emotionally exhilarating to figure that out in the first place, but there is some emotional high in pointing out what he had been calculating.

Does this emotional high mean I am likely in the least to be wrong in saying that the "* π" belongs to the round and not to the rectangular simpler area, before he makes a complex one by deducting one from other?

Of course not.

Well, I may get a much higher kick out of pointing out the intellectual errors of Heliocentrics and Darwinists than of pointing out his. There may even be an obvious reason for this, those things being proned by people making a living out of proning these things, while he is certainly not making a living out of painting elliptic giant doors 15 ft by 9 ft 4 in on occasion with very small square windows of 4 in * 4 in. And if on occasion he does gain sth from painting a door 7 ft 6 in by 4 ft 8 in with a round window 8 in across, he probably doesn't need to calculate the amount of paint in advance, since he can save what is left in the tin for next time, which in that area is probably soon.

Now, that I am getting this emotional high from proving "learned men" or men who should have been learned wrong, does not prove I am reasoning wrong about the matters on which I think them wrong.

Nor is that the case for the fact that I prefer reasoning before calculating rather than accept the reason behind someone else's calculation just because he calculated right : he could have reasoned wrong, and calculated on the wrong things, as calculating the wrong type of door surface.

Nor does the fact that the conclusions I come to are more exhilarating than materialism. I am not sure which materialist, it could have been Hume, said that in order to support his philosophy he had to cease thinking about it and play backgammon instead. C. S. Lewis made a remark about philosophies which are so terrible they can only be supported by increasing doses of backgammon ...

The intellectual appeal of heartlessness in science "not letting emotion get in the way" is a false one.

Because, what the 19th C. would have called a heartless man, Jeremiah would have called a man whose heart is currently being actively deceitful, not just generally and habitually so. And in Jeremiah, "heart" includes the kind of calculations even in pure mathematics which you believe in.

Lest I be deceitful about credits, here is the article by Gary Bates:

When the emotions are gone, what’s left?
Engaging the mind as well as the heart is vital
By Gary Bates | Published: 16 March 2017
http://creation.com/emotion-gone

As I just explained, Jeremiah is using heart and mind as synonyms, and not as the antonyms Gary is used to from modern culture.

The actual point of the article is more about another matter, on which I will be shorter. Evangelicals have not quite understood "thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold fruit" of the "good soil". To Catholics "thirty-fold" means married and using marriage in a Christian way. Sixty-fold means widowhood (St Thomas shows a typological reason why this number should have been chosen, in Beda's hand one finger is oppressing another in the sign for sixty, and widowhood is oppressive). Hundredfold means virginity. This latter part is probably the most unwelcome one to Evangelicals.

As a result, their way is that all should be married, but all should have as un-fun lives as widows (there may be a security related reason for saying they are right if not in general at least perhaps about last century), no wine, no secular music, hospitality is allowed, but who sneaks off with whom is supervised, the marriages are as supervised with them as the priesthoods with us Catholics.

And, as a result, Evangelical life is more like signing up for, if not being a monk, at least being a Franciscan Tertiary, than simply signing up for being a Catholic. It puts tough pressure on the will, and a will that does not get sufficient emotional support will probably break.

He is right that the mind should be armed against heresies like Old Age and Evolution, he would have been right if adding against Heliocentrism as well, because it gives a highway to the distant starlight problem, but he might do well to consider what the exact demands are Evangelical "Churches" puts on Evangelical Christians and ask if this is only what Christ actually demands of every Christian. I think not, that is why I rejected Evangelicalism even as an option at age 14.

One of the reasons this is so is perhaps the misreading about "heart"="emotion" and "emotional highs"="deceitful heart".

Without the Rosary, I have survived as a believing Catholic, but hardly as having charity toward God and Neighbour or Forgiving my Debtors.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday after
Second Lord's Day of Lent
16.III.2017

Les élèves français étaient arriérés en maths, selon le classement PISA? Un peu d'inspiration pour les études de maths, alors!

Les élèves français étaient arriérés en maths, selon le classement PISA? Un peu d'inspiration pour les études de maths, alors! · Je ne sais pas combien la règle à calcul était populaire en France

C'est quoi 10^13/43? Ou 10^3/10?

D'abord, 10¹³ = 10 000 000 000 000.

Ensuite, 2⁴³ = 8 796 093 022 208.

Donc, 10¹³ ≈ 2⁴³.

En fait, quand on tape 10^x sur la calculatrice pour 13/43, on arrive à 2,0059753011004145503368445918337.

Encore, il y a aussi 10^3/10.

10³ = 1000. 2¹⁰ = 1024.

Donc, 10³ ≈ 2¹⁰.

Et quand on tape 10^x sur la calculatrice pour 0,3, on arrive à 1,9952623149688796013524553967395.

Or, la proportion 2:1 se trouve entre la proportion 2006:1000 et celle de 1995:1000. Donc, pour avoir 10^x "=" 2^y (ce qu'on n'aura jamais tout à fait), il faut que x/y se trouve entre 13/43 et 3/10.

Essayons.

0,3023255813953488372093023255814 (13/43)
0,3 (+ 3/10 =)
0,6023255813953488372093023255814 (:2=)
0,3011627906976744186046511627907

Or, 10^x pour 0,3011627906976744186046511627907 = 2,0006116372359750002448174178255.

Et, en effet, 20006:10000 est plus proche de 2:1 que 2006:1000.

Le logarithme pour 2:1 est donné comme 0,30102999566398119521373889472449.

0,3011627906976744186046511627907 (voir plus haut)
0,30102999566398119521373889472449 (à soustraire, le logarithme de 2, ce qui =)
0,00013279503369322339091226806621

Différence : 0,00013279503369322339091226806621.

On peut donc très bien dire que 2 (ou plutôt 2:1) ≈ 10^13/43 ou 10^3/10.

Ce qui veut dire que 10¹³ ≈ 2⁴³ ou 10³ ≈ 2¹⁰.

Une puissance est, en soi, à exposant en nombre naturel.

Un exposant rationnel mais fractionnel est donc un abrégé algébraïque.

"a^b/c = d" veut dire "a^b = d^c".

Et un exposant irrationnel en est l'expression quand il n'y a que d'approximation entre deux puissances des deux bases, comme entre les puissances de 10 et de 2. Elle n'a pas de réalité arithmétique, mais bel est bien géométrique.

Les "0,301" comme logarithme de 2 sur la base 10 sont très vrais par rapport à la longueur sur laquelle se trouve sur une règle à calcul la marque "2" en vue de la longueur sur laquelle se trouve la marque "10".

Et, comme on sait (j'espère), les longueurs, ce n'est pas de l'arithmétique, c'est de la géométrie!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Veille de St. Thomas Apôtre
20.XII.2016

I Said CMI Often Makes Good Articles

Now, John Gideon Hartnett is really eager not to get Creationism, which he promotes, conflated with the theory that Moon Landing was a hoax. Very possibly it was not. Geocentrism does not depend on calling it a hoax. Seeing Earth turn from Moon, if it happened, doesn't prove Earth turns any more than it proves Moon turns around Earth. So, Lunar mission, even if genuine, is not a refutation of Geocentrism.

However, that does not mean it cannot possibly be a hoax. Here is how John Gideon Hartnett argues it cannot be:

NASA did land astronauts in the moon in 1969, and after that. That is a historical fact.

Well, it is at least a historical fact we were shown they did.

That even the hoax theory does not dispute.

The conspiracy theory claims that it was all faked in a Hollywood film studio.

I would, if opting for hoax, be more inclined to say it was filmed in Egypt : desert looks like moon landscape a lot (colour can be manipulated), and a pyramid could have been briefly reflected onto a face shield of some astronaut.

This hoax had developed to such a point that NASA used its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to take new photographs in 2011 from an altitude of 50 km (31 miles) of the surface of the moon that clearly show astronaut footprints, the lunar rover tracks and spacecraft scorch marks.

These could have been faked too.

The fact of the moon landing is a historical question for which there is strong supporting evidence.

Like the fact it is a historical fact?

Or ... now we come to the point:

To add to this is the testimony of probably a hundred thousand people involved in the Apollo missions.

Suppose a factory worker or head of a factory testifies something like this:

[Fictitious testimony:]"I was told to produce a plastic that could withstand the cold and keep astronauts warm in outer space, and I did, I tested it on contraptions getting down to +3 Kelvin or liquid Helium, and it isolated like a thermos, the tea was still hot"

Well, I would believe him. But that does not mean he was there when the three stepped into Apollo 3, pretty few men where there at close hand, and these could have been handpicked.

So, it could theoretically be a hoax, most of the hundred thousand people "involved" where not so at sufficiently close hand to know better than the man in the street. Same for landing on return.

Most of what they knew, they, like we, were simply told it was so.

And that would be the case with a Russian claim too. If there came one.

The point is, most employees do not act like the teens in Famous Five. Even if they see one little suspicious detail, they soon forget it, if they think it is best for keeping the job. Georgina "George" Kirrin has a real talent for being where she is not supposed to be. Those who have that tend to get sacked and most people do not want that.

Perhaps Enid Blyton herself was shut up in a mental hospital for finding out one little thing too much, and reacting emotionally, and trying to hide things by talking of the characters she pitied in terms of their fictitious names in the novels. Or the names of their counterparts as to character. By 1968, things were getting tough for characters like George or Julian. If not as much in most America as in England, at least in some areas.

And yes, space missions would be one of them.

To cover that up would take a deception of gigantic proportions.

Not so gigantic after all.

However, when it comes to Creationism, he has a point: refuting Evolution is not a question of a hoax theory, it is a question of reasoning badly about the evidence that is usually not a hoax (with some Piltdown exception, and perhaps ill mounted Neanderthal skulls as well).

CMI : Apollo moon landing hoax and the ‘Face on Mars’
Published: 25 August 2015 (GMT+10) by John G. Hartnett
http://creation.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax

And, as said, I don't need to assume Moon Landing a Hoax in order to maintain Geocentrism as possible:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : And Ibn Baz changed his mind for that ...
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-ibn-baz-changed-his-mind-for-that.html

And:

deretour : "Moontruth"? Why?
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/moontruth-why.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St Zephyrinus
26-VIII-2015

PS, I came across another article, where I had once again made the point that Geocentrism has no need to discredit NASA:

Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.
(on this blog)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/06/answering-two-points-raised-by-dr.html