Damien Mackey and Thony Christie Are Non-Galileo-Fans, But Still Apparently Heliocentrics Thony Christie Still Apparently Heliocentric

"His quote." So Damien Mackey. Hence, I'll presume of the two only Thony Christie is so.

Galileo wasn’t the father of anything
https://www.academia.edu/170842561/Galileo_wasn_t_the_father_of_anything

Damien Mackey extensively cites, but also comments Thony Christie.

Here is a quote from the end:

I would be tempted to call Galileo primus inter pares – first among equals – within the scientific community of his time, were it not for Kepler, the mathematical visionary who deduced the orbital shapes and laws of motion that guide the movements of the planets. Although he enjoys a far less popular reputation, Kepler contributed more than Galileo to the development of modern science. You might more properly acclaim him as a hero. Most accurately, though, you would recognise science for what it truly is: a group activity of great minds collaborating, challenging and goading each other into the unknown.

Riccioli, a Catholic astronomer and a Jesuit priest, knew of Kepler.

He did accept the correction "ellipses, not circles" but he didn't approve of Kepler being a mechanist or of his Heliocentrism (helio-utro-focalism, putting the Sun in one of two elliptic foci of Earth's supposed orbit)./HGL

PS, for the relevance of above, let's recall, 1633 wasn't primarily about condemning Galileo as a person, it was about condemning Heliocentrism./HGL

Et si Riccioli et St. Thomas se contredisaient à un sujet et si la solution était acceptable dans un autre contexte ?

Quelqu'un voudra taxer le Géocentrisme de Protestantisme ? · Et si Riccioli et St. Thomas se contredisaient à un sujet et si la solution était acceptable dans un autre contexte ?

St. Thomas d'Aquin et Giovanni-Battista Riccioli, le dominicain et le jésuite, avaient un désaccord.

Pour les deux, comme dit, chaque astre est mu par un ange.

Le soleil par un, la lune par un autre, Vénus et Mars par encore d'autres et les étoiles fixes aussi. Mais ...

• pour St. Thomas, cette motion n'était pas celle de 24 h
• pour Riccioli, elle l'était.

Pour Riccioli, un ange meut Sirius autour de la terre une fois les 23 h et 56 min. Un autre meut le Soleil autour de la terre une fois les exactement 24 h. Et encore un autre meut la Lune autour de la terre une fois les 24 h et 50 min. Dieu commande à ces anges, mais ne meut Lui-Même rien.

Pour St. Thomas, peu sûr combien un ange mouverait Sirius (j'aurais une idée et j'y reviens), mais l'ange du Soleil fait un tour par an et l'ange de la Lune un tour par mois. ET, c'est Dieu qui en tout ça fait bouger les étoiles ensemble une fois les 23 h et 56 min. Le mouvement est donné par acte directe de tout-puissance à la sphère crystalline où se trouvent les étoiles fixes (dont Sirius), qui, elle, touche la sphère crystalline où se trouve Saturne, qui touche la sphère où se trouve Jupiter et ainsi de suite, jusqu'à la sphère de la Lune et l'atmosphère sublunaire.

Or, si Riccioli n'a pas retenu ce scénario, il y a une raison.

Tychon Brahé avait prouvé que les sphères crystallines n'existent pas. Comment ? Bien, il observa un comète, et il sût qu'il aurait traversé plusieurs sphères si elles avaient été là. Un solide ne traverse pas un solide comme ça.

Or, si Riccioli donc niait les sphères solides dans l'espace, présumablement il croyait le vide (hormis les corps célestes) ... comme Newton. Et là, Foucault aurait une chose à dire contre le Géocentrisme, au moins du tour de 23 h et 56 min. Car si l'espace n'est rien hormis les coordinés, qu'elle raison aurait sa pendule à bouger, hormis de rester en place, quand la terre bouge, autour d'elle-même ?

Et si l'espace n'est rien hormis les coordinés, également suit un problème qu'on m'avait objecté (à travers intermédiaires) à St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, quand j'étais là. Que la terre reste en place et le soleil tourne chaque an, soit, mais si le Ciel entier tournerait autour de nous chaque 24 (ou quelque) heures, les étoiles bougeraient plus vite que la vitesse de la lumière.

Petite question, si l'espace est en effet juste des coordinés vides, pourquoi la lumière aurait-elle une vitesse maximale qui vaudrait aussi pour les autres choses ? Poser des limites de vitesse, c'est plutôt le propre d'un corps de quelque sort que du vide, non ?

Bon, s'il y a une substance à travers laquelle la lumière et les autres choses ne doivent pas dépasser la vitesse 299 792 458 m/s, c'est possible que cette substance se déplace et peut-être dans des endroits plus vite que ceci. Juste à travers elle, pas de vitesse plus grande que ces 299 792 458 m/s.

Et notons, les étoiles ont un mouvement autre que le journalier. Pour α du Centaure, je ne pense pas en première ligne des fameux 0,76 secondes d'arc par demi-an, que les héliocentriques attribuent à notre propre mouvement autour du Soleil, non, cette "parallaxe" est mesurée contre l'arrière-fonds "de l'aberration" qui varie d'angle vers 20 secondes d'arc par demi-an. Et Sirius, dont je ne me souviens nullement de l'angle du parallaxe, partage ces 20 secondes d'arc.

Plein arc, plein tour, pleine cercle, ce serait donc 360 degrés. 1 degré, 1°, c'est 1/360. 1 minute, 1', c'est 1/60 d'1°. Et 20 secondes, 20", c'est 1/3 d'1'.

Combien les étoiles sont-elles distantes ? Si un triangle qui implique 0,76 secondes d'arc et 1 demi-an est dû au mouvement de l'étoile (donc de l'α du Centaure), et non celui de la terre, on n'y implique pas les 2 Unités Astronomiques et on n'y implique aucune distance connue. Mais les sondes spatiales Voyager 1 et Voyager 2 prennent un peu moins de 48 heures de répondre à l'identique à un signal censé prendre la vitesse de la lumière, à savoir 2 * 23 h, 50 min, 20 sec. Voyager 2, nettement moins distante de nous, juste 2 * 19:55:10 ... or à toute évidence, les deux n'ont pas atteint les étoiles fixes. On peut donc soupçonner que celles-ci se trouvent à 1 journée lumière de nous.

Si le 18 nov. cette année Voyager 1 dépasse la distance 1 journée-lumière, je serais peut-être obligé de changer d'avis, au moins 2 journées-lumière. Mais pour l'instant, 1 journée-lumière.

Ce qui fait que le trajet par jour de chaque étoile est 2 π journées-lumière, soit 6,2832 journées-lumière. Et comme dit, avec la substance de l'espace, pas à travers. Dieu guidant la totalité de cette substance dans le mouvement journalier.

Pour diviser 6,2832 journées-lumière par 360, d'abord convertir en heures-lumière ou plus petites mesures encore. C'est 150,7968 heures-lumière, encore trop peu, ou 9047,808 minutes-lumière. Comme dit, pour le tour entier. Pour 1°, je viens de compter, 25,1328 minutes-lumière. Et pour 1', 25,1328 secondes-lumière. Et pour 20", 8,3776 secondes-lumière. Ceci donc, pas en secondes, pas en minutes, pas en heures, pas même en quelques jours, mais dans un demi-an. Ceci est la vitesse d'une étoile par la substance de l'espace. Très nettement inférieur à la vitesse de la lumière.

Cette substance de l'espace, elle explique aussi ce qui tourne autour de la terre et cause, par example la pendule de Foucault.

D'où elle résout les deux objections posés, d'un côté et de l'autre, à ma mise à jour du géocentrisme.

Vu que cette substance pose aussi les limites à la vitesse de la lumière même, et celle-ci est une ondulation, elle est probablement une ondulation de cette substance, d'où elle devrait être identifiée à l'éther, que les interpètes héliocentriques de Michelson et Morley croyaient avoir été invalidé par l'expérience. Et comme l'a remarqué Robert Sungenis, Sagnac a invalidé, non l'expérience Michelson et Morley, mais bien l'interprétation sans éther. Donc, les deux expériences ensemble valident le géocentrisme. Pour vous expliquer comment il fonctionne, j'ai par contre dû faire appel à Riccioli et à St. Thomas.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Matthieu, Apôtre
21.IX.2026

In Aethiopia natalis sancti Matthaei, Apostoli et Evangelistae; qui, in ea regione praedicans, martyrium passus est. Hujus Evangelium, Hebraeo sermone conscriptum, ipso Matthaeo revelante, inventum est, una cum corpore beati Barnabae Apostoli, tempore Zenonis Imperatoris.

Galileo Was Wrong, and the Church Was Right

Robert Sungenis wrote a book on this theme, with above title. He has made films on this topic, and this one is on the side history of ideas (inside and outside the Church), enjoy:

The Church Versus Galileo (Official) - Introduction
Robert Sungenis | 21 April 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH092GTREYM

Note: Dr. Robert Sungenis believes Vatican II was a Council and John Paul II a Pope of the Church./HGL

Note two, here he's citing Ernst Bloch cited by Ratzinger and commenting:

According to Ernst Bloch, the heliocentric system, just like the geocentric, is based upon presuppositions that can't be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space. That's an opinion that in any event has been cancelled by the theory of relativity.

Here, Cardinal Ratzinger courageously revealed one of the main thesis of geocentric cosmology. Not only does he admit there is no empirical proof for helioentrism, he realizes that the very foundation of modern science permits and promotes the geocentric universe.

Obviously, the Classic Geovcentric universe is finite, and therefore has absolute movement./HGL

Quelqu'un voudra taxer le Géocentrisme de Protestantisme ?

Quelqu'un voudra taxer le Géocentrisme de Protestantisme ? · Et si Riccioli et St. Thomas se contredisaient à un sujet et si la solution était acceptable dans un autre contexte ?

Narratio prima de libris revolutionum Copernici (1540) est par Georg Joachim Rheticus, un Protestant qui est condamné pour viol sodomique (sur un inébrié).

C'est un livre héliocentrique qui apparaît avant De revolutionibus orbium coelestium par Copernic, lui Catholique, et ce livre n'apparaît qu'en 1543.

Entretemps, le livre géocentrique (tychonien) Almagestum Novum apparaît en 1651, par le Jésuite (et donc Catholique) Giovanni Battista Riccioli.

Si quelqu'un prétend que Copernic aurait prouvé l'héliocentrisme, pourquoi, plus que 100 ans plus tard, en pleine connaissance de cause, l'astronome jésuite, qui n'est pas un idiot, trouve-t-il encore le géocentrisme crédible ?

Et si quelqu'un prétend que Copernic montre que l'héliocentrisme serait au minimum Catholique, pourquoi le premier livre qui apparaît est de son disciple protestant Rheticus ?

Je remercie Robert Sungenis d'avoir évoqué Rheticus et le fait que son livre est illico mis sur l'index. Dans le même livestream il répond aussi sur Riccioli.

Entretemps, comme dit, Riccioli est un astronome. Il est vraiment capable à faire des très fines observations en télescope, moi, je n'arrive pas à poser l'œil correctement sans que les cils touchent la lentille, il est capable à des calculs merveilleux, il n'est pas un simple quidam.

Savez-vous comment il explique les mouvements des astres ?

New blog on the kid: What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:24
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

Si vous consultez Almagestum Novum, comme je l'ai fait en ligne, exemplaire numérisé de la bibliothèque de Zurich, cherchez Pars posterior tomi primi; Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate, Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum, CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura.

Pour l'exemplaire numérisé, je l'ai trouvé ici (pp. 247 et 248), voici :

http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

Et je viens de citer quelques extraits, faciles à copier et à traduire :

I Prima Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à propria forma, seu ab intrinsecò, ne forma illa esset otiosa & inferior formis elementorum ...

II Secunda Opinio fuit eorum, qui cælos & Astra moueri quidem à propria forma dixerunt, sed quæ esset anima Intellectiua, au etiam sensitiua & vegetatiua ...

Tertia itaque Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à Deo ipso Immediatè. ...

III. Quarta Opinio, eaque communissima, est; cælos & sidera moueri ab Intelligentijs seu ab Angelis, tanquam assistentibus, & immediatis causis effectiuis, non autem tanquam ab animabus informantibus cælum, atq. adeò moueri ab extrinsecò principio, sed creato.

Traduisons en français :

I La Première Opinion fut, les cieux sont mus par leur propre forme, ou intrinsèquement, pour que cette forme ne soit pas otieuse et inférieure aux formes des éléments ...

II La Deuxième Opinion fut de ceux qui ont dit que les cieux et les Astres sont mus certes par leur propre forme, mais qu'elle soit un âme intellective ou même une âme sensitive et végétative ...

La Troisième Opinion fut, que les ceixu sont mus par Dieu même immédiatement. ...

III La Quatrième Opinion, et celle-ci la plus commune, est, les cieux et les corps célestes sont mus par des intelligences ou par anges, comme par des causes assistantes et immédiates, effectives, mais non comme par des âmes qui informent le Ciel, et qu'ils sont donc mu par un principe extrinsèque, mais créé.

Donc, il groupe les deuxième et troisième opinions ensemble, l'astre serait mû soit par une âme, soit par Dieu immédiatement, et il les rejette avec la première, que les astres seraient mus par un principe intrinsèque. Il accepte par contre "3, la quatrième opinion" que les astres sont mus par des anges.

Celui qui avait posé la question à Sungenis avait cru que Riccioli avait simplement fait une collation des pères et des scholastiques sur le géocentrisme. Non, il est astronome, par contre, ici il évoque lesquels des théologiciens se rangent à chaque opinion, dont St. Thomas et les Jésuiste de Coimbra sur la quatrième opinion. Et, pour la première, qu'il rejette, Kepler, qui avait considéré que les planètes sont mus par le Soleil par magnétisme.

Dans sa conclusion, il commence de dire grosso modo que l'astrophysique n'est pas une science. L'ange moteur n'est pas strictement (metaphysicè uel mathematicè) prouvable, car pas strictement nécessaire. Par contre, il considère qu'il peut être prouvé "de manière physique ou au moins morale" par la considération que les motions intricates et régulières reclament une intelligence et que cette intelligence n'est pas celle d'une âme intrinsèque, comme par exemple les jambes d'un danceur soient mus, car dans les astres, on ne découvre pas de changements qui pourrait indiquer une quelleconque biologie. Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il aurait dit ça ayant pris connaissance des protubérances et j'en passe, qu'on ne pouvait pas encore observer. Et c'est probablement par cette idée qu'il base tellement sur "les Jésuites de Coimbra" ou "St. Thomas d'Aquin" ou "Nicolas de Lyre" ou "Nicolas de Cues" ont dit ceci, mais il faut aussi tenir compte du fait que les Lumières n'avaient pas encore tamponné le recours aux autorités comme sans pertinence. Et aujourd'hui on leur ne suit plus, vraiment, mais malheureusement on limite les "autorités" pertinentes à l'expertise contemporaine. Grâce à C. S. Lewis, je sais différencier, je pose la question "a-t-on refuté cette position, ou l'a-t-on juste négligé" et pour les anges moteurs, je conclus à la manque de réfutation. Ils seraient déjà réfutés par le Monisme, quant aux Monistes, mais je ne suis précisément pas Moniste. Le Monisme n'étant pas vrai, il ne peut refuter rien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Pierre de Compostelle
10.IX.2026

Compostellae sancti Petri Episcopi, qui multis virtutibus et miraculis claruit.

Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence

Are Claims Evidence? · Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence? · Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence · Relevant Expert? · "In the Beginning God Created Heaven and Earth"

Halting the video again at 35:41.

Joe Schmid takes up the possibility of hallucination.

Sure.

BUT, he also makes the point that if he doesn't know he's hallucinating, he should accept the computer screen as showing a real "lovely bald man in a red shirt" (meaning Dillahunty, who knows he's bald and knows his shirt is red and might even think he's lovely or chuckle at the joke).

A parallel.

If I know I am on a train, I should accept that things I see outside the window as moving are in fact not moving the way I see them, because the train ride making me move in relation to the observed items, makes them move, not relative to the surrounding space, but relative to me, insofar as I am considered a kind of frame of reference.

This is clearly inforced by the fact that I know from experience outside trains that churches, hills, trees and forests, cars in a parking lot don't move and walking people don't move that fast.

On the other hand, if I don't know I'm in a train ride, I have no reason to take items observed outside my immediate vicinity as still if I see them move.

Now, the Heliocentric certainly thinks he knows he's on a "train ride" around the Sun in relation to Pisces and Virgo. But a Geocentric would reply, no, it's Earth that's stationary and the Sun that's moving in relation to Pisces and Virgo. An angel moving it.

And when each day-and-night we either can observe Pisces or Virgo as not hidden in the Sun (right now that would be Pisces we can observe), the Heliocentric thinks he knows that we are on a merry-go-round ride in relation to Pisces and Virgo, taking turns in Paris and Pacific (or further North the edge of Siberia) to see Pisces, as we successively turn to and away from them. But a Geocentric will reply, no, it's the universe that's moving, with Pisces and Virgo and right now the Sun taken along with and below Virgo and hiding her. And God omnipotent moving the Universe each day.

I will believe the Heliocentric on his testimony on what he thinks he knows. He's honest. But even if he's an astronomer, his testimony isn't sufficient evidence for him knowing this to be a fact. I have met at least two astronomers* online giving evidence that Geocentrism, the default position given what we see, or its corollary, supernatural movers, God and angels, are not something they keep in consideration even as a possibility.

If they don't consider it a possibility, how could I conclude they had refuted it? Refutation involving normally considering what you refute.

As long as I don't know I'm the one moving, I have no reason to take Sun and Virgo and Pisces as being still (compared to the Earth and ignoring Sun's supposed "trajectory around the centre of our galaxy") or Earth as moving with me. I have no comparable back-ground knowledge about stars compared to what I have about houses or trees.**

The example of the space travel, it actually is a good point against Heliocentrism, rather than against Christianity, since observing the Solar System from the outside would actually be visual proof of what was moving around what inside it. But we do not have this outside observation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

PS, on the subsequent question of how we know scientific data, Dillahunty says, only what the scientist observed is evidence, Schmid says, correctly, to everyone except the scientist, his testimony is what we know about what he observed.

I obviously do accept what scientists clearly testify to having observed, if it's sufficiently intelligible to me. I only disagree with them on either interpretation (of current 25 pmC in a sample from Göbekli Tepe or on 0.76 arc seconds parallax in α Centauri) or whether the thing could, at all, be simply a question of observation (some people are trained to see when people are incoherent, and their training may be such as to make them overdo that interpretation ... a misunderstanding rewarded by more patients in an order of magnitude and therefore more work opportunities). A shrink misunderstanding someone's coherence, a carbon dater not taking into account that samples from Göbekli Tepe are from when the atmosphere had just half the carbon 14 content compared to now, an astronomer who thinks we moved 0.76 arc seconds with the angle between our positions measured in α Centauri, none of these are simply the facts they observed./HGL

* Phil Plaite and one from Denmark. My bad, Erik Høg was the guy who couldn't help me about inverted parallax in 2015, c. 11 years ago. But on the other hand, searching him I found two more like Phil Plaite.

** I'm aware I haven't here detailed the technical answers on all items for Geocentrism, but that is outside the boundary of epistemological probability we are dealing with here.

Flat Earth, Psy-Op? Hysteria Against Flat-Earthers, Definitely Psy-Op

I'll cite one source for this psy-op in the wiki:

Eugenie Scott called the group an example of "extreme Biblical-literalist theology: The earth is flat because the Bible says it is flat, regardless of what science tells us."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs

Now, it is true that Samuel Shenton and Charles K. Johnson were both Bible believers.

However, some other Flat Earthers aren't. Vedic Astronomy seems to have some adherents, it's Flat Earth and as it's Vedic, it isn't Biblical.

And it's also true that if all I knew of Flat Earthers were what Eugenie Scott said, if I had no previous reasons to believe the Earth a sphere, or to believe the Bible passages allow another, very strictly literal meaning, without any woo woo about "it's metaphoric" and "mature to symbolism" ... Eugenie Scott would just have persuaded me to actually consider Flat Earth.

Now, it very clearly isn't.

I looked up a BBC piece stating that youtube helped to spread Flat Earth, and the first thing I meet is an Englishman who says water is flat in a cup of tea, flat in a bathtub, so why would he expect it to be rounded in the ocean? I don't need to expect anything. Having often travelled between Malmö and Dragør on ferry, and walked a sea shore walk too narrow to accomodate bathers, I once or more than once sat down there, with binoculars. The ferry clearly appears top and chimney before hull, and disappears hull before top and chimney. The water is curved, I have seen it.

Again, there is not one single Bible passage where a strictly literal reading (unless you strictly limit yourself to an English or other Germanic translation) forces a Flat Earth interpretation.

So, what about this one?

After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 7:1]

Yes, ban English translations of the Bible! Arundel versus Wycliff for the win! No, seriously, I'm joking, since even in English there is a giveaway, that we deal with a somewhat inaccurate (to idiomatic English) translation. And all Germanic languages have the same issue, and at least modern versions of Slavonic languages too.

But Latin, French, Spanish as well as Hebrew haven't. Eretz = terra = earth. Eretz = terra = land. (Terra is pronounced "terre" in French and "tierra" in Castilian).

And Land as it so happens has four major corners against the Pacific.

Another thing in Eugenie Scott, she contrasts the Bible with "science" ... I would say that whether you classify my views with the binocular as science or not, it certainly is also everyday experience. It's certainly not just science, like a lab doing particle colliders. There are other types of everyday experience that also support Earth as meaning whatever lies beneath both land and sea is a globe. For instance, the impossibility to draw a Flat Earth map to scale. To be fair, any flat projection will refuse to be fully to scale as well, either angles or areas will be twisted. That's part of why I have a hard time to find out if Ellesmere Island is kind of partially a "fifth corner" of land, but even if it were, it would be a flatter angle than the four corners. And Ellesmere Island isn't very inhabited either, so it's definitely not a fifth corner of the oikoumene, which is one Biblical meaning of Earth. But still, if you accept a flat circle with the North Pole in the middle, you are at extreme odds against getting anything to scale.

You are also up against the Bible, because the outer corners of the land in that perspective would include two of the actual corners (Cape Horn and Tasmania), then add a non-corner (Cape of Good Hope, nope, it's not protruding South of the globe line between Cape Horn and Tasmania) and either lack a fourth corner or need to accept Australia as having a second corner, in the vicinity of Perth. Which is pretty absurd. And the Bible, as quoted, says "four" corners, not "three" ...

Again, travel times and travel routes (for instance between Santiago de Chile and Sydney) and travel around the world in "Latitude zero" by Mike Horn are anecdotal, and therefore unscientific, but precisely therefore far trustworthier than "science" arguments for Earth being an actual globe.

Now, probably Shenton was a not so well travelled man, and his Flat-Earthism was not a Psy-Op. I'd like to also give Rob Skiba II at least the benefit of the doubt. But youtube started in 2005.*

This was four years after I became a Geocentric. In 2001, St. Bartholomew's Feast, I became Geocentric. OK, 3 and 1/2 years, since I became so in the second half of 2001 and youtube was founded in very early 2005.

Robert Sungenis** is better known than I:

According to Sungenis, he became interested in geocentrism around 2002 after he read the book, Geocentricity by Gerardus D. Bouw. Sungenis became an advocate for the idea by 2006.

Perhaps my early encounters with other Geocentrics, apart from Pope Michael I, were about Geocentricity. I just found at least one of the editions, perhaps the first, was 1992. THAT very certainly WAS before youtube even existed, let alone gave Flat Earthers a boost.

So, the first question in the title here, when you spell it out, is, is Flat Earth artificially boosted to both take attention away from and to many detract from the credibility of Bouw, Pope Michael I, me or Robert Sungenis? Because to a person like Eugenie Scott, Flat Earth is kind of a boon when it comes to ridiculing the act of "believing X because the Bible says so, despite all science to the contrary" ...

I can't agree with Bouw's King James onlyism, that translation mistreats "battologein" in Matthew 6:7, and as to his Baptist Successionism, it's theologically possible on the one item of Matthew 28:20, but historically impossible. The things that are both theologically and historically possible are Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. The Baptist Successionist claim violates history (or Matthew 5:14—15), the Lutheran / Calvinist and the Mormon / JW / 7DA types of claims violate Matthew 28:20. But that's no reason to disparage Bouw's contribution to Geocentrism.

However, on one point, Bouw*** and Sungenis after him have taken the wrong turn:

Bouw believed that the theory of heliocentrism is what eventually led into many of the "immoralities" seen today. Due to this, he ended up modifying the cosmology of the 16th century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, who offered a modified model of geocentrism that put the planets centered on the motion of the Sun rather than the Earth, while the Sun orbited a stationary Earth. Bouw modified this model further by adjusting the stars also to be centered on the Sun rather than the Earth to explain the aberration of starlight. This way, he believed that his modified geocentric model would be observationally equivalent to heliocentrism, thus leading to argue that the correct view can be only established outside scientific observation with theological reasoning.

I reject that last modification, and say that "aberration" and "parallax" are two mathematical analyses of fix stars being moved by their angelic movers. But he is right in the first aspect. Heliocentrism led away from the Bible, from God, from Christian dogma, from Christian ethics. Geocentrism is, Flat Earth isn't, how one retraces, for as many as possible, the way back. For as many as possibly can, and if more could, were less indoctrinated by Eugenie Scott, more would be saved. And if you accept angelic movers, as well as Geocentrism, you get rid of "parallax" supposedly giving a trigonometric proof for 4 light years to α Centauri. The 2 AU distance is between two positions of the Sun against the Zodiac and need not be matched by a 2 AU distance between the two positions of α Centauri. Which makes the triangle an angles only one, without distance, and so useless to calculate distance. WHICH IS where I came into this idea, since the Distant Starlight Problem° depends on Heliocentrism and Cosmic distances with and beyond those "measured by parallax" ....

Yes, I am a Geocentric. No, I'm not a Flat Earther. And no, if you buy into the hysteria of Eugenie Scott, that Geocentrics or Young Earth Creationists are "no better than Flat Earthers" you are actually worse than one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Moses, Prophet
4.IX.2026

In monte Nebo, terrae Moab, sancti Moysis, legislatoris et Prophetae.

PS, I went to the comments' section under Metatron's video about Flat Earthers, and guess what? The comments of one Globe Earther and Geocentric had been taken down. That's like he actively is trying to discredit and silence this Geocentric by "reductio in platismum" a bit like some would try to discredit Schuschnigg, DeValera, Franz Joseph Strauss by a "reductio in Hitlerum" .../HGL

Notes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerardus_D._Bouw
° So, I think my solution is better than that or most of them in a book by Humphreys, D. Russell (1994). Starlight and Time: Solving The Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. Foreword by Ken Ham. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. The preview doesn't allow seeing whether Mr. Humprhey's even briefly considered Geocentrism.

Robert Sungenis Graciously Answered my Question in the Livestream

I didn't know that.

I left early, bc of the library's closing hours.

Here is the livestream:

Geocentrism and Spacecraft, Mary's Vow, Usury, and What John 1:1 Really Says
Robert Sungenis | 26 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2udV5yiQZTk

I have reservations on some things he said, like denying the Mediatrix of all Graces, but I'm happy he answered./HGL

A Fan of Chesterton?

Question:

Mario in Croatia says what do you think about another big British Giant in the literary scene GK Chesteron and his work?

Response:

Oh yes I haven't read everything of Chesterton's but obviously great novelist and very funny and and quirky um and his his great book the Everlasting man and other things like that were attempts 100 or so years ago um to explore the world in ways that at the end of the 19th and early 20th century people just weren't doing obviously he comes from a very traditional Roman Catholic um perspective um and and was was kind of exuberant in his delight at being able to to say the opposite of what everyone was expecting and I think sometimes he overdid that and it was just his personality I'm not an expert on him but I've I have always enjoyed reading him ...*

Now, did Chesterton enjoy saying what everyone was NOT expecting him to say?

Certainly.

Did he twist things so as to be able to do that?

Certainly not.

Did he open enquiries that others were not engaging in?

Definitely. The Lewis trilemma is kind of a repeat of what he had already said in The Everlasting Man.

Now, he's not adressing at this point those who deny the Gospels and therefore deny Jesus claimed to be God. He's adressing a very specific ecumenic nonsense.

Well, looking up, Chesterton actually did adress that too:

This quality of something that can only be called subtle and superior, something that is capable of long views and even of double meanings, is not noted here merely as a counterblast to the commonplace exaggerations of amiability and mild idealism. It is also to be noted in connection with the more tremendous truth touched upon at the end of the last chapter. For this is the very last character that commonly goes with mere megalomania; especially such steep and staggering megalomania as might be involved in that claim. This quality that can only be called intellectual distinction is not, of course, an evidence of divinity. But it is an evidence of a probable distaste for vulgar and vainglorious claims to divinity. A man of that sort, if he were only a man, would be the last man in the world to suffer from that intoxication by one notion from nowhere in particular, which is the mark of the self-deluding sensationalist in religion. Nor is it even avoided by denying that Christ did make this claim. Of no such man as that, of no other prophet or philosopher of the same intellectual order, would it be even possible to pretend that he had made it. Even if the Church had mistaken his meaning, it would still be true that no other historical tradition except the Church had ever even made the same mistake. Mahomedans did not misunderstand Mahomet and suppose he was Allah. Jews did not misinterpret Moses and identify him with Jehovah. Why was this claim alone exaggerated unless this alone was made. Even if Christianity was one vast universal blunder, it is still a blunder as solitary as the Incarnation.

The purpose of these pages is to fix the falsity of certain vague and vulgar assumptions; and we have here one of the most false. There is a sort of notion in the air everywhere that all the religions are equal because all the religious founders were rivals, that they are all fighting for the same starry crown. It is quite false. The claim to that crown, or anything like that crown, is really so rare as to be unique. Mahomet did not make it any more than Micah or Malachi. Confucius did not make it any more that Plato or Marcus Aurelius. Buddha never said he was Bramah. Zoroaster no more claimed to be Ormuz than to be Ahriman. The truth is that, in the common run of cases, it is just as we should expect it to be, in common sense and certainly in Christian philosophy. It is exactly the other way. Normally speaking, the greater a man is, the less likely he is to make the very greatest claim. Outside the unique case we are considering, the only kind of man who ever does make that kind of claim is a very small man; a secretive or self-centered monomaniac. Nobody can imagine Aristotle claiming to be the father of gods and men, come down from the sky; though we might imagine some insane Roman Emperor like Caligula claiming it for him, or more probably for himself. Nobody can imagine Shakespeare talking as if he were literally divine; though we might imagine some crazy American crank finding it as a cryptogram in Shakespeare's works, or preferably in his own works. It is possible to find here and there human beings who make this supremely superhuman claim. It is possible to find them in lunatic asylums; in padded cells; possibly in strait waistcoats. But what is much more important than their mere materialistic fate in our very materialistic society, under very crude and clumsy laws about lunacy, the type we know as tinged with this, or tending towards it, is a diseased and disproportionate type; narrow yet swollen and morbid to monstrosity. It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked; for in a sense he is not cracked enough. He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it. This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity. It can be found, not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics. But this is exactly where the argument becomes intensely interesting; because the argument proves too much. For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazareth was that sort of person. No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all.**

This reasoning has most been attributed to C. S. Lewis, and then popularised in the form known often as "the Lewis trilemma" which has been summarised as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord."

Note what he thinks of those who would give Christianity and Islam a kind of peaceful coexistence, not just in society, that's a different story, there may be reasons for that, but in the minds of believers or unbelievers.

The purpose of these pages is to fix the falsity of certain vague and vulgar assumptions; and we have here one of the most false. There is a sort of notion in the air everywhere that all the religions are equal because all the religious founders were rivals, that they are all fighting for the same starry crown. It is quite false.

And yes, it's false whether you make it mean Mohammed thought he was Allah or whether you make it mean Jesus didn't think He was God, and most specially whether you make it mean that being a prophet is one of those things which are generally beneficial and so beneficial that it doesn't matter whether you make a claim to being God or not.

Did Krishna claim to be God or Brahman in any sense? Well there are lines in Bhagavadgita which lend themselves to such a reading.

However, given he died 3102 BC and that the first even lost manuscript of Mahabharata (of which the Gita is an extract or expanded extract) is probably from 400 BC*** or later, there is plenty of room for changing religions among those remembering him to have changed his place in religion and therefore to have attributed to him things he didn't say at all. Or just didn't mean that way. Imagine some of the verses in Bhagavadgita prefaced with "thus saith the Lord" and the reading becomes different. However, I'm not saying Bhagavadgita would be theologically correct even read that way. I can't say for certain, I haven't read it, I can only say that read in the usual way, it is to us Catholics paganism and condemned.

Now, do I claim to be God? Not the least. But some will pretend I do, simply because, like Chesterton, I ... let's quote Tom (Nicholas Thomas) Wright ... I take

delight at being able to to say the opposite of what everyone was expecting.

Probably Mr Wright (whom as a Traditional Catholic I do not consider a real Bishop) will say I overdo it too. His right.

It's my right to disagree with Wright on Chesterton. And I think Mario from Croatia does so too. It's also my right to not be held accountable for blasphemous claims just because I have the kind of cultural attitude Chesterton had.

Now, "obviously he comes from a very traditional Roman Catholic um perspective" ... is a bit funny to anyone who knows his biography. He was not a cradle Catholic. He was born in the kind of Liberal (English sense°) family that would be prone to pull off a list of religion founders like Jesus, Buddha, Mahomet (or Mohammed) ... and that's the kind of family he ultimately opposed by becoming Catholic.

He also didn't get to Catholicism in his teens, like I did over reading him and Tolkien, both of whom I ultimately favoured over C. S. Lewis when disagreeing, all of whom I valued not just as fiction writers, but as essay writers. In the summer between ninth and tenth grade, I went to England and learned that English has sixteen tenses, unlike other Germanic languages that have eight.°° I also bought so many essay collections by C. S. Lewis that my suitcase was overloaded, both for its closure and for my muscles. But before twelfth grade, I had started to read some Chesterton essays borrowed from the library. And decided to become Catholic.

In his own case, he converted to Christianity (after being into witchcraft for a while) at adult age, for love. He converted to a version of Anglicanism probably more Catholic leaning than either C. S. Lewis or N. T. Wright. But as yet, like his dear wife, not yet to the Catholic Church. When his parish decided they could have a statue of Mary, but without the Christ Child, he came to very swiftly prefer the Roman Catholic Church, where you can have both.

He had already started out as a writer when converting. Now, Everlasting Man, which I quoted, is from 1925, three years after he converted. But his career as a novelist was mainly before his conversion, as some other well noted books:

The Napoleon of Notting Hill is a novel written by G. K. Chesterton in 1904, set in a nearly unchanged London in 1984.°°°
The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare is a 1908 novel by G. K. Chesterton.°°°
Orthodoxy is a 1908 book by G. K. Chesterton which he described as a "spiritual autobiography". It has become a classic of Christian apologetics.°°°
The Ballad of the White Horse is a poem by G. K. Chesterton about the idealised exploits of the Saxon King Alfred the Great, published in 1911.°°°
Manalive (1912) is a book by G. K. Chesterton detailing a popular theme both in his own philosophy, and in Christianity, of the "holy fool", such as in Dostoevsky's The Idiot and Cervantes' Don Quixote.°°°
The Flying Inn is a 1914 novel by English writer G. K. Chesterton. It is set in a future England where the temperance movement has allowed a bizarre form of Progressive Islam to dominate the political and social life of the country.°°°

So he was not writing these from a "traditional Catholic" perspective per se. He was writing them in the same Communion as N. T. Wright or C. S. Lewis, that is in the Church of England. He was, per se, writing them from the perspective of a Catholic leaning Anglican.

But how very Catholic leaning he was is of course illustrated by the fact that Tom Wright takes him as having written them from a "traditional Catholic" perspective.

Now, here is another example. He began The Return of Don Quixote as an Anglican and completed it as a Catholic.~

The really funny thing about Tom Wright speaking on "traditional Catholic" is, the phrase has come to mean, to many, the fact of opposing some who are taken as Popes, because said people, whether the one opposing takes them as Popes or not, doesn't find them sufficiently Catholic. Chesterton had no intention whatsoever of opposing the magisterium back in his time, which means that his agreements with this movement actually do argue that traditional Catholics are right in finding a discrepancy between Catholicism in 1992 (as presented and represented by Karol Józef Wojtyła and associates) and Catholicism in 1922 (when Chesterton converted, under the undoubted Pope Pius XI).

Now one discrepancy, to the origin of Adam, not just body, but also soul, not just soul, but even body, Chesterton was a creationist. Obviously, this faces the problem of a quote in Orthodoxy:

“Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy~~

But Orthodoxy is 1908, while he was a Protestant. While a Catholic ... three years in, as noted on Everlasting Man, he said this:

Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.~~~

This is the exact same point that Young Earth Creationists like to repeat on the concept of Historical Science. It doesn't provide positive total certitude for a scenario about the past, at the utmost excludes loads of scenarios.

As a Catholic convert in 1988, age 20, I felt very fine with being Young Earth Creationist. As a Chestertonian too.

I'm skipping over mostly the times from early nineties to c. 1995 or so, at the latest 1998 or 1999, when I took some kind of Old Earth scenario, but a very limited one. No 4.5 billion years, but about as much extra time as to fit in the Silmarillion ... or Egyptian and Babylonian paganism. Not meaning I believed the Silmarillion literally was an account of these "longer than Biblical" and yet not all that long ages, but it served as an example of what it could have been. I returned on reading St. Augustine City of God, in 1999.

In 2001, I got a challenge. The distant starlight paradox. If certain celestial objects way further than Sirius or than α, β, γ Andromedae are at a distance of more light years than Christian Biblical chronology has years, and believe me, they are very obscure finds, I couldn't find a named one on wikipedia, apart from "other galaxies" (formerly known as spiral nebulae), most famous being Andromeda galaxy, which is sth else than Andromeda the constellation, if they are further away than speed of light would allow to reach within Biblical chronology, what does that do to Biblical chronology?

I tried to argue and still hold, the parallax gives "a very slim triangle" as Hovind would have and did say back then. To α Centauri, the distance of 4 light years is "measured" by trigonometry of an angle of 0.76 arc seconds. One arc second = the angle at the centre of earth between two points at the Equator, distant of 31 meters.# The parallax to α Centauri, an even smaller triangle.

However, my challenger gave an example citing a Nova which had exploded and the size of the ring, with its spread which would have (on his view) have spread outward in light speed before being reflected to shine towards us.

Part of the answer I gave is, angels performed the thing, as elaborate fireworks.

But I gave more. I attacked the beginning of the cosmic distance ladder## by stating, if angels are moving the stars, then the "parallax" need be no such thing, and the side of the triangle of length 2AU need not be at all in the triangle earth, star position 1, star position 2, unlike what it would have been if the triangle had been "star, earth position 1, earth position 2." ###

This means, this problem is solved by Geocentrism. And Geocentrism is possible if God is moving the whole shebang each day and angels moving the individual bodies within that.

Dear St. Bartholomew, thank you for 25 years of Geocentrism!

It was on 24 Aug 2001 that I gave the answer, 25 years ago. (The diagram in the footnote is later).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Bartholomew
24.VIII.2026

Sancti Bartholomaei Apostoli, qui Christi Evangdlium in India praedicavit; inde in majorem Armeniam profectus, ibi, cum plurimos ad fidem convertisset, vivus a barbaris decoriatus est, atque, Astyagis Regis jussu, capitis decollatione martyrium complevit. Ipsius sacrum corpus, primo ad Liparam insulam, deinde Beneventum, postremo Romam ad Tiberinam translatiun insulam, ibi pia fidelium veneratione honoratur.

* Source:
Tom Wright Q&A answering personal questions about his own faith, his favourite preachers, and books!
Premier Unbelievable? | 7 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jef5uKjj3Jk

** Source:
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
PART II. — ON THE MAN CALLED CHRIST [chapter] III. — THE STRANGEST STORY IN THE WORLD
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311h.html

*** Source:

Man nimmt an, dass es erstmals zwischen 400 v. Chr. und 400 n. Chr. niedergeschrieben wurde, aber auf älteren Traditionen beruht.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

° Gladstone, not Kamala Harris

°° They are not equally useful. "I would have been going" (past future perfect continuous) is not as useful as (past) "I went" ...

°°° Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Napoleon_of_Notting_Hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_(book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_the_White_Horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Inn

~Source for this and some detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Don_Quixote

~~Source:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7405654-evolution-is-a-good-example-of-that-modern-intelligence-which

~~~Source:
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton (ut supra)
Part I. On The Creature Called Man [chapter] II. — PROFESSORS AND PREHISTORIC MEN

# 40 000 km / 360 = 111.1111111111111111 km
111.1111111111111111 km / 60 / 60 = 0.0308641975308641975 km = 30.8641975308641975 m

## See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

and for a fun reflection on it:
Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/have-you-heard-expression-von-neumann.html

### Illustration:

Geo vs Helio
hglwrites | May 29, 2012
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

Trent Horn Said a Few Things

On a topic I'm not linking to. Mainly.

But he brought up, in doing so, the concepts of "rash judgement, detraction, calumny" (item I), of "nonsense arguments that would take months to research" (item II) and of giving certain positions "a legitimacy they don't deserve" (item III).

Here is how I think it applies to what he and a few others in Catholic Answers have been doing in my case.

"rash judgement, detraction, calumny" (item I)

You know ... that paragraph reminds me of what some did about my interventions on other subjects.

Galileo cited a high Church man as saying "the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go".

[a high Church man, not necessarily Baronius in the official text]

You could have retracted at my challenge.

You could have said you don't know where it's from.

You could have provided "a margin note by Galileo here adds Baronius" and given a source.

You could in either of these cases have admitted, Baronius was not able to have said this on earth and so Galileo could hear it or hear of it during the Galileo controversy where Geo vs Helio was the main issue. Because at this point, unlike the Giordano Bruno case, Baronius had died. Which I mentioned.

Instead, I had to wait a year to hear about the margin note through a friend of mine, after Jimmy Akin repeat offended, try to look it up, and when I sent what I had found to Catholic Answers, you do not respond.

How is all of this not an example of what must have begun with some calumny or detraction about me, since this is not how you would otherwise treat people?

And yes, whether Baronius said it under the Galileo controversy actually does matter.

The act of the Holy Office publicised over the sees and universities of the Church had magisterial authority then as the condemnation of Feeney did under Pius XII. The Dimond brothers, who unlike me are Feeneyites, make a point of making this comparison. Pope Michael I may have been alerted to the question by this exact meme, since he also was an Anti-Feeneyite (unlike Iglesia Catolica Rimanente in Argentina, with the later claimant Alexander IX, who seem to have quietly dropped the papal claim since).

So there are two moves to make Heliocentrism licit despite this. One is to say Holy Office and publication world wide is still short of infallible authority. The other is to remove the possibility of "ordinary infallible magisterium" by showing at least one contemporary disagreed on this precise question when it was a major one which is what attributing the quote to Baronius would do.

Therefore, I think some people should be way more open on where exactly the margin note by Galileo was, when it was found and by whom, on what example of the Letter (the manuscript or what edition if any) and how sure we are it was Galileo's.

Because, in the meantime:

• Heliocentrism has via Newtonian-Paleyan quasi Deist to Deist positions promoted Atheism and Agnosticism, removing a proof for God
• Heliocentrism has been promoted by Freemasonry since Desaguyliers (who had for his father a grievance against Catholicism) and been (since accepted) a hook and bait to Freemasonry
• Heliocentrism has been used to promote and has been promoted by belief or hypotheses on aliens
• Heliocentrism has been used to prove creation more ancient than the Bible says (denying Genesis)
• Heliocentrism has been used to prove Ascension and Assumption impossible
• Heliocentrism is now promoted by confusing Geocentrics with Flat Earthers.

And at least one of the men you are in communion with has said that directly to me, inviting me to enjoy the life of a vagabond, but by implication have nothing to do with writing and getting read.

That man is Sébastien Antoni, Assumptionist or supposed such, and in Pèlerin promoted "Adam and Eve were not actual individuals" which goes against Trent Session V.

Detraction and calumny do offend against the virtues of justice as well as charity. And a certain attitude visible in prolonged silence actually does speak of a very presumable precisely calumny.

"nonsense arguments that would take months to research" (item II)

Since when is it a nonsense argument to research:

• we all can see Sun, Moon, other planets and Fix Stars move around Earth each day
• and this could perhaps be overturned but only if there is a stronger argument for Earth moving

Or:

• if "place" is not a matter of empty space coordinates, but an actual substance as Einstein thought, then Coriolis and related effects can be understood as the "fabric of space time" or "aether" moving around Earth

Or:

• propo A) Geocentrism as observed is too complex to result from only masses and their inertia and gravitation, but would need voluntary movers on a very powerful scale
  
  
• Thus either:
  
  
  • propo A + Geocentrism is observed therefore voluntary movers on a very powerful scale exist (including one moving universe around Earth each day since forever), which we call God
  
  
  
• or:
  
  
  • propo A + such movers don't exist (as per Atheism and Anangelism) therefore Geocentrism is the kind of illusion it's presented as

Or:

• Joe Heschmeyer learned in school that Geocentrism became more complex and more complex and unwieldy in theory / Mark Shea considers Geocentrism led to absurd spirograph patterns
• Hans Georg Lundahl replies that no, that's just true of Ptolemaic Geocentrism and as to the complexities of a geometric type in the "spirograph patterns" that is just an illustration of propo A, Geocentrism needs a divine mover of day and night and angelic movers of individual celestial bodies.

Fringe positions do not involve months of absurd research automatically, some are fringe because they do, some are fringe because as fringe they are supposed to do, and no one does honest research of a few hours going through the logical options, if even that much.*

"a legitimacy they don't deserve" (item III)

Ah, "gives that topic a legitimacy it doesn't deserve"

Sure, Young Earth Creationism can deserve no legitimacy if CCC § 283 overrides Trent Session V and therefore individual existence of Adam (and Eve).

But the rule in Trent Session IV doesn't bind you to a position the magisterium now holds even if no one held it anywhere 300 years ago. It binds to a position that the Church (as in the magisterium at least on parts of the occasions considered or as per expositions by magisterially positioned or endorsed men, like Church Fathers) hath held and still holds

I actually googled "tenuit et adhuc tenet" and found an AI response:

Uttrycket används ofta i medeltida rättsliga dokument, egendomslängder och urkunder. Det beskriver en situation eller ett juridiskt innehav som inleddes i det förflutna och som obruten fortsätter i nuet (till exempel en person som ägt eller brukat en viss jordlapp eller ett gods sedan tidigare år och fortfarande gör det).

The expression is often used in Medieval juridical documents or inventories and deeds. It describes a situation or a juridical possession which was initiated in the past and which unbrokenly continues to the present (for instance a person who has owned or used a certain patch of land or a manor since earlier years and still does so).

That means, CCC § 283 can't override Trent Session V or St. Augustine's City of God.

So, perhaps after all, Young Earth Creationism does deserve legitimacy, and refusing to give it that is participating in a conspiracy of silence:

A third powerful factor in the diffusion of Communism is the conspiracy of silence on the part of a large section of the non-Catholic press of the world. We say conspiracy, because it is impossible otherwise to explain how a press usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of life has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated in Russia, in Mexico and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should have relatively so little to say concerning a world organization as vast as Russian Communism. This silence is due in part to shortsighted political policy, and is favored by various occult forces which for a long time have been working for the overthrow of the Christian Social Order.

(Divini Redemptoris).

and an earlier Pope:

When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack,

(Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

Since some have noted, I have been short of sleep, well, some actually do deprive me of sleep, but the things I say here are things I have said even when no one was doing that and my sleep was lots better. It would be perfidy to bring that up in order to marginalise what I wrote here.*

But Trent Horn actually does have a point about oral debates. That's why I prefer written ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joan Frances Fremiot de Chantal
21.VIII.2026

Sanctae Joannae Franciscae Fremiot de Chantal, Ordinis Sanctimonialium Visitationis sanctae Mariae Institutricis, cujus natalis dies Idibus Decembris memoratur.

PS, item IV:

While I, 100 %, believe the dinosaurs are real, and in some cases good evidence for the Flood, I cannot identify with any kind of duty to believe this.

That dinosaurs existed, in other places but same time as the men drowned in the Flood, is correct, like it is correct that Göbekli Tepe is Babel. It is not "sound doctrine" like Catholic truth, doctrine or dogma in either of these cases, it's technical fact, like there are Hebrew texts for Genesis 3:15 with the dot elsewhere so "hi" rather than "hu" is read. It's supporting evidence, not the main thing like "ipsa conteret" in St. Jerome's text. And apparently Vetus Latina before it too, but that also is less important.

Our duty is to the Bible, Tradition and Magisterium, not to the experts. Trying to discredit someone over that is simply stupid. It's the kind of Commie move that made Trump trump Rubio who had better policies, but wouldn't sign down on earth being billions of years.

PPS, item V:

"not someone whose reasoning should be trusted"

Generally speaking, we should not overly trust people's reasoning if we can't replicate it.

A reasoning should be analysed and accepted or rejected, not "trusted" because of who's making it. Whether Candace or Lemaître, whether Galileo or Settele, Hannam or Keating.

The cult of science gets this wrong. It borrows from Jews the idea that ordinary people don't debate, they only follow debates. It's "for rabbis" to actually question someone else's "teaching" ... we have no duty to trust someone else's reasoning if we cannot follow it. Trent Horn is pandering to the Jews who tell their own not to trust anyone who takes Isaias 53 as about Jesus.

---

* An example of what my sleep lag will actually do is this. I wrote "and no one does honest research of a few hours going through the logical options, if even that much" and could have written instead "and no one does honest research of a few hours going through the logical options, if even that much had been needed" ... that's not a substantial difference in what I'm saying. Some might even say my sleep lag improved my stile.

Pourquoi croit-on si souvent dans l'Héliocentrisme ?

Vers l'âge de quatre, j'ai été informé que la terre était ronde et non plate, comme elle pouvait sembler (on était dans une ville assez plate, pas une région montagneuse). Et qu'elle tournait autour d'elle-même chaque jour et autour du soleil chaque an.

Pourquoi ... comme dit ?

Peut-être en partie parce qu'on apprend ça à un âge qu'on croit tout-ce qu'on apprend des parents, et peut-être aussi parce que c'est présenté ensemble avec une vérité confirmable, la globalité de la terre.

Je parle de la terre sous le Ciel, le corps entier qui est un globe. La partie non-maritime et petite-maritime (non-pacifique) de la superficie n'est bien entendu pas un globe et a en occurrence quatre coins.

Ce qui m'amène à une autre raison. La Bible est assez clairement géocentrique. Si on prétend par les quatre coins qu'elle enseigne aussi le platisme, on la décrédibilise, mensongèrement.

Christianisme et créationnisme et retour au géocentrisme, ça m'est venu plus tard, et le retour au géocentrisme beaucoup plus tard.

9 ans moins quelque (la famille divisée n'a pas permise à ma mère de me donner des leçons cohérentes du caté avant), 10 ans et quelque (après des tentatives de conjuguer l'évolutionnisme et la Bible, mais aussi de comprendre des trucs comme mécanisme de l'abiogenèse ... l'ordre de l'ADN ne se fait pas lui-même ... et l'origine du langage humain), et finalement 33 ans moins quelques jours.

Il y a des gens qui prétendent "oh, les pauvres Chrétiens, ils ont été indoctrinés si tôt dans le Christianisme !" et les Chrétiens sont censés écouter ça comme si ça expliquait tout et laissait rien à la réflexion actuelle pour maintenir l'appris. Mais personne imagine que les Mudulmans en masse vont se poser des questions si l'appris tôt dans la vie que "Mahomet est prophète de Dieu" ou que les Scientistes / Athées en masse vont se poser des questions si l'appris si tôt "la terre tourne" est vrai ou une erreur qu'on a juste mal a démasquer à cause de "propagande" parentale "précoce" comme ils diraient sur les Chrétiens.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jean Eudes
19.VIII.2026

Cadomi, in Gallia, sancti Joannis Eudes Confessoris, Missionarii Apostolici, Fundatoris Congregationis Presbyterorum Jesu et Mariae necnon Ordinis Monialium Dominae Nostrae a Caritate, et promotoris liturgici cultus erga Sacratissima Christi ejusque Genitricis Corda; quem Pius Papa Undecimus fastis Sanctorum adscripsit.

Comment une vraie histoire devient une fausse ?

Comment une vraie histoire devient une fausse ? · Les "extrémités de la terre", prouvent-elles le platisme comme affirmation biblique ?

Je ne parle pas de fiction. Je parle d'histoire. Mais d'une histoire inexacte, faussée.

Quand quelqu'un dit, je cite :

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre est ronde.

Alors, deux choses.

D'abord, c'est de l'histoire, pas de fiction. Ce n'est pas comparable à ces deux propos :

Esmeralda a presque été brûlée sur le bûcher pour sorcellerie.
Faramir a presque été brûlé sur un bûcher par son père Denethor.

Non, Victor Hugo et Tolkien ont écrit des fictions, et Esmeralda est tout aussi peu réelle que Faramir.

Galilée est une personne réelle, et le propos erronné se refère à une année réelle, 1633.

C'est juste que le propos est contaminé.

Prenons deux propos corrects et traçons leur transition.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Par la grande distance ou encore par une zone de vents très chaotique qui ne permettrait pas la traversée.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

Pour certains, on a voulu taxer les Géocentriques que le clergé avait certainement, très majoritairement, par rapport à quelque peu d'héliocentriques qui devaient aussi abjurer, comme l'équivalent de platistes. Peu nous importe si ce sont des Franc-Maçons, des Protestants, des Catholiques avides à changer la doctrine, ce genre de mobile existait. La mauvaise volonté et la mauvaise foi existent.

La première étape a été de déformer les discussions à la cour d'Espagne, parce que moins connues.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Parce qu'on tomberait du bord, dans le vide, dans l'abysse.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

En plus d'être davantage incriminant pour le clergé "obscurantiste", c'est aussi un peu plus simple. Cette étape est certainement acquise dans le quasi-roman de Washington Irving :

Une histoire et les voyages de Christophe Colomb (The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus), 1828
Les Compagnons de Colomb (Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus), 1831

Je dis quasi-roman, mais le titre laisse entendre qu'il aurait eu des prétentions historiques sérieux. Notons, il était fils d'un pasteur calviniste puritain, très anticatholique déjà, et influencé par les Lumières dans les États-Unis, très prône à critiquer l'obscurantisme catholique, même quand celui-ci n'existait pas dans l'histoire.

La seconde étape a donc été d'ajouter la forme de la terre aux accusations contre Galilée.

Columbus a eu d'opposition pour son projet parce que le clergé pensait que la Terre était incircumnavigable. Parce qu'on tomberait du bord, dans le vide, dans l'abysse.
Galilée a risqué le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde. Il n'a pas été brûlé, mais il a abjuré.

La troisième a été de confondre avec encore un autre propos correct, pour le faire encore davantage incorrect.

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités et chaque Système Solaire a son Dieu qui en plus est quasi "incarné" dans la physique (Dieu le Fils dans le Soleil, Dieu le Saint-Esprit dans le mouvement).

D'abord, oublions qu'il ait fait de la théologie fort hérétique.

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités [omission de la théologique incorrecte].

Ensuite, confusion entre les sorts de Galilée et Bruno:

Giordano Bruno a été brûlé pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, autour d'elle-même et que chaque étoile est un Soleil avec des planètes habités.
Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde.

Ensuite, oubli des supposés parallèles:

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil chaque an et encore chaque jour autour d'elle-même. Et même parce qu'elle est ronde.

Ensuite, oubli du vrai enjeu du procès :

Galilée a été brûlé sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé que la Terre ... est ronde.

Ça simplifie, non ?

Sauf que c'est du faux. Mais. Même si c'est du faux, c'est historique. Et entre vrai histoire et histoire faussée, il y a une parentèle.

Pourquoi dire ça ? Entre autres choses pour noter que le clergé catholique n'a pas été platiste. Une lecture littérale de la Bible n'a pas indiqué que la terre sous le ciel soit plate (mais la terre qui s'élève au-dessus des mers peut bien avoir quatre coins, c'est autre chose).

Ensuite aussi parce que, si c'est exclu que l'histoire de la Résurrection de Jésus soit de la fiction ... ce que Phil Stilwell m'a accordé, alors, il fait y avoir un chemin possible entre des vrais évenéments sans résurrection et la version de l'histoire qui a une résurrection.

Or, personne n'a présenté un processus réaliste comment la résurrection pourrait s'introduire dans un récit historique de la communauté qui en sort.

Donc, Jésus est vraiment ressuscité.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Invention des reliques de St. Étienne
et de St. Gamaliel
3.VIII.2026

Hierosolymis Inventio beatissimi Stephani Protomartyris, et sanctorum Gamalielis, Nicodemi et Abibonis, sicut Luciano Presbytero divinitus revelatum est, Honorii Principis tempore.

Les "extrémités de la terre", prouvent-elles le platisme comme affirmation biblique ?

Comment une vraie histoire devient une fausse ? · Les "extrémités de la terre", prouvent-elles le platisme comme affirmation biblique ?

Pas plus que les quatre coins de la terre.

Voici les deux phrases qu'on a prétendu d'affirmations du platisme, en des endroits bien respectables (pas les mots d'Éliphaz, par exemple).

La reine du Midi s’élèvera, au jour du jugement, avec cette génération et la condamnera, parce qu’elle est venue des extrémités de la terre pour entendre la sagesse de Salomon, et il y a ici plus que Salomon.

Après cela, je vis quatre anges qui étaient debout aux quatre coins de la terre ; ils retenaient les quatre vents de la terre, afin qu’aucun vent ne soufflât, ni sur la terre, ni sur la mer, ni sur aucun arbre.

Matthieu 12:42 et Apocalypse 7:1, j'ai cité la Bible Crampon. L'un endroit, Jésus lui-même parle, l'autre, son Apôtre et prophète Jean voit une vision.

Et il ne peut pas s'agir de métaphore, la reine du Midi ou de Saba est venue d'un endroit réel et les quatre anges sont ou seront ou ont été en quatre endroits réels. Ne trichons pas.

Voici la solution. En français, le mot "terre" comme en hébreu le mot "eretz" a deux significations distinctes :

Au commencement Dieu créa le ciel et la terre.

Genèse 1:1. Le corps sous le Ciel est ronde.

Dieu dit : « Que les eaux qui sont au-dessous du ciel se rassemblent en un seul lieu, et que le sec paraisse. » Et cela fut ainsi. Dieu appela le sec Terre, et il appela Mer l’amas des eaux. Et Dieu vit que cela était bon.

Genèse 1:9, 10. Le corps ou les corps qui s'élèvent au-dessus de la Mer s'appelle Terre. Pour ce moment initial, je considère probable que la Terre était un seul amas, que l'Atlantique n'existait pas encore. Depuis, le Déluge a déformé ce rectangle, mais les quatre coins sont encore là. Et il y a davantage d'extrémités parce qu'il y a davantage de mers à côté de la Pacifique.

La reine est venu d'un endroit où l'Arabie finit vers la Golfe d'Aden, peut-être en même temps où le Corne d'Afrique finit vers le Golfe d'Aden. Il y a d'autres extrémités, comme Finisterre en Bretagne ou Cornouailles en Angleterre, où les grandes côtes.

Les quatre coins se trouvent entre les grandes côtes du Ouest, Nord, Est tandis que l'ex-grande côte du Sud a été déchiquetée par le Déluge en plusieurs extrémités de la Terre. Les quatre coins sont donc les coins du Sud-Ouest (Cap Horn), du Nord-Ouest (Alaska), du Nord-Est (Sibérie près de Kamtchatka) et du Sud-Est (Tasmanie).

Loins d'infirmer la Bible, ces passages la confirment, les extrémités banalement, les coins plutôt drastiquement. Et non pas en supposant le platisme vrai, mais simplement en bon géographes.

Si quelqu'un voudra prétendre un cinquième coin, du Nord, à Ellesmere, cet endroit n'est presque pas habité. Ce qui déborde au Nord au-dessus d'une ligne entre Alaska et Sibérie a comme plus grande habitation humaine, très peu au Nord de la ligne droite, Mourmansk. Avec une population comparable à Malmö, c'est à dire 200 000 / 300 000 pour chaque ville. Ellesmere est du Nord du Canada et ce Nord, comme tout Groenland, manque la densité de la population qui rendrait nécessaire les soins des quatre anges.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

Refeaturing

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: John Lennox' Failure to Show He's Christian
Monday, February 5, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:27 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/john-lennox-failure-to-show-hes.html

To Some People "SSPX is in Schism" Means "Traditional Positions are Schismatic"

I agree SSPX is in schism or heresy, for Pope-sifting.

I agree that classic Sedevacantism in the sense of "we haven't had a Pope since 1958, we can't get one either" is also wrong, but at least it avoids Pope-sifting or partial obedience. In the version known as "Sedeprivationism" it doesn't avoid Pope-splitting in the sense of saying "so and so is materially Pope" (and that's why we can't get one) "but not formally Pope" (and that's why we can't obey him).

But I don't agree either of them has discredited the positions that were undermined and sometimes even directly contradicted.

For my part, so far, I obey Pope Michael II. That's one solution that avoids both.

Robert Sungenis thinks one can obey "Leo XIV" via his bishop, but if his bishop is OK with his traditional positions, the one who would be mine over here if "Leo XIV" were Pope, seemingly isn't.

CCC § 283 is heresy on any reading I can understand so far.

If "Leo XIV" or his men here want to say it's not contradicting Geocentrism or Young Earth Creationism, fine, let them show how it's compatible. But instead of even trying, some seem to want to pretend I'm a Flat-Earther, just because their favourite Secularist dope in "Science" (meaning Evolutionism) has come out with "Young Earth is like Flat Earth" when it isn't, or because their Ecumenic partners among Muslims are telling them I oppose Galileo because I'm a Flat Earther, because some Muslims here are that bad at the history of Christendom.

Meanwhile, one hardliner present in Écône, Fr. Paul Robinson, a man who defended not even making a pause for hearing what pretendedly "his Pope" had to say, is equally opposed to Young Earth and suggests that this belief somehow smacks of Protestantism, when it is that of St. Augustine, as you can see from City of God.

Or some will say "Pius XII allowed the belief that Adam's body developed from non-human life-forms" when he actually allowed a discussion behind closed doors. And as far as the Roman Curia was concerned, thank you Christine Pedotti, for the info if not the view point, the discussion was about a decade later mature to close into dogmatising Creationism. Which is not what the council did.

So, trying to push back on SSPX or appeal to Pius XII, is not how one can reasonably convince me. But some over here don't care about "reasonable" in relation to me.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
VIIth Lord's Day after Pentecost
12.VII.2026

"and nobody knows that he assumes it." (Application, Galileo)

First, this may seem irrelevant, but this is statistics from yesterday:

France
131 + 20 + 151 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 39 + 6 + 4 + 6 + 22 + 1 + 23 + 10 + 39 = 459 (14:36, 27—28.VI)

Second, to the topic:

Galileo and the Bible
https://www.museumofthebible.org/book-minute/galileo-and-the-bible

The End of the Galileo Affair: Galileo's Theological Contributions
by Cory Hayes | February 15, 2024
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-end-of-galileo-affair-galileos-theological-contributions/

Galileo and the Interpretation of the Bible
Published: March 1999 | William E. Carroll
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008657104961

More than one of above cite the famed quote that Galileo put into the mouth of Eminence or Monsignor Anon. : "the Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven" ... that on Springer even repeats a usual misattribution to Cardinal Baronius. Now, this made me think somewhat of a certain essay collection by Chesterton: The Thing. Or rather, I thought of the connection when on FB I saw a part of below quote:

Curiously enough, I find this sort of thing rather specially widespread in our age, which claims to possess a popular culture or enlightenment. There is everywhere the habit of assuming certain things, in the sense of not even imagining the opposite things. For instance, as history is taught, nearly everybody assumes that in all important past conflicts, it was the right side that won. Everybody assumes it; and nobody knows that he assumes it.

For instance, everyone assumes that if scientists settled on the world being older than 6000 to 7500 years, as different Biblical chronologies would indicate, it's because it's "good science" ...

A curious and amusing instance comes from America; in connection with Mr. Clarence Darrow, the somewhat simple-minded sceptic of that land of simplicity. ... And one of his arguments for that is that if they did believe in certain happiness beyond the grave, they would all kill themselves. He says that nobody would endure the martyrdom of cancer, for instance, if he really believed (as he apparently assumes all Christians to believe) that in any case the mere fact of death would instantly introduce the soul to perfect felicity and the society of all its best friends. A Catholic will certainly know what answer he has to give. But Mr. Clarence Darrow does not really in the least know what question he has asked.

Mr. Darrow is the lawyer of Scopes, in the famous State of Tennessee v. Scopes trial. Note, Chesterton doesn't mention State of Tennessee as simpleminded. What Clarence Darrow seems to have recommended, Chesterton may have heard of as rumoured that Germany was going to apply it and later applied it to the "simple-minded" in T4.

But first mention of "assumes" in The Thing:

Every leader-writer who thunders "Galileo" at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock.

OK, Chesterton read Tintin adventure Prisoners of the Sun ... or Hergé imitated the topos from other adventure stories, earlier than this album. But anyway, he had read some people Gish Gallopping against Catholicism with Galileo as a probable third to fifth word in an early sentence. Maybe even the first one.

Yesterday also, I came across someone speaking on a certain patristic position arguing that Israel would have been impossible, but he also mentioned the opposite position, of Israel coming back right in the end times. Anyway, he said ... (beginning after 10:22 and ending before 10:48) this little thing:

... we have become ideologically captured rather than formed by the unbending sturdiness of reality. Okay? We used to believe that the earth was the center of the solar system. Then upon new data, we realized it was in fact the sun. So when our presuppositions toward reality are falsified, the least we can do is be honest enough to admit it.

I commented on it and the comment was taken away, not sure if by him or on the cyber.

Now, he assumes people before ... Copernicus? Galileo? Newton? ... believed that the Sun was the centre of ... the solar system. Not of the universe, as correctly representing their belief (on most issues also mine), but of the solar system. Because what goes around us each night from East to West is absolutely only the Moon and Jupiter and Venus and things, while Sirius and Orion totally stay in the same place? In fact, the position he, and presumably his history teacher attributed to pre-Copernicans would have been refuted by me simply when I measured that Orion had moved 30° (or twice the 15° of using my outstretched arm and dispersed thumb and fingers as measure) during the two hours I had been away from S. to D. in a certain city scarce and village dense part of Sweden.* Because 2 * 12 hours = 24 hours. And 30° * 12 = 360° Orion, which no one ever took as "part of the solar system" moves 360° (or full circle) in 24 hours (or actually a few minutes less than that). No, no one ever believed a theory which would be such easy to refute, if he was a learned man.

Also, he assumes that we got "new data" and that becoming Heliocentric was the honest and only adequate adjustment to new data.

He didn't say which ones, not sure if his history teacher or even science class ever taught him that. Or if he retained what they tried to teach him.

Like, for Earth being round we have Magellan and modern flight routes. Do you propose Luke Starwalker and the maps Han Solo uses for Heliocentrism? Will you be very, very, very disappointed if I tell you that shots "on Tatooine" are actually from North Africa, like Mos Eisley on Tatooine is Ajim, Tunisia for outdoor and Elstree Studios on Shenley Road, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire for indoor shots of the Cantina. The 1977 film no more proves Heliocentrism than the Ganges' East bank reminding someone of Gibraltar actually proved Round Earth, in Aristotle's time. Try again.

But those who won't try are the guys who assume that in every important armed or intellectual conflict "the right side won" ... and who assume it so hard, they don't even know they assume it.

Like pretty many of the 459 page views I had from France in 24 hours, and also the videast Christopher Kuehl. As to Church Fathers who very early on gave some kind of mitigated support for some kind of Zionism, that would also involve Jews converting to Christianity. I support Jeff Morgan, not Netanyahu. Also not a fan of Hamas reducing Christians in Gaza (with soft bullying involving alcohol band but not limited to them, no doubt).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Peter and Paul
29.VI.2026

Romae natalis sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, qui eodem anno eodemque die passi sunt, sub Nerone Imperatore. Horum prior, in eadem Urbe, capite ad terram verso cruci affixus, et in Vaticano juxta viam Triumphalem sepultus, totius Orbis veneratione celebratur; posterior autem, gladio animadversus, et via Ostiensi sepultus, pari honore habetur.

* Some old lady, who had helped the Norwegian resistance, back in her youth, may have taken my gesture as a NS salute, as Orion was c. 45° above the horizon ... it wasn't one. I'm pro-Franco and pro-Dollfuss. As to pro-Hitler, that's for art schools, not politics.

Spielberg Wants Me to Second Guess My Religion, or So I Have Been Told on FB

Spielberg Wants Me to Second Guess My Religion, or So I Have Been Told on FB · St. Augustine Taught, Even Sane Men View Delusions by Demons

He says "his new alien movie Disclosure Day will make Christians second guess their entire religion".

Over the shared meme, a probable atheist or so explains:

“Is God only our God here on Earth, or is God the creator and God of every civilization throughout the universe?”

This is the challenge I find IF the stories are true from experiencers.

1. Pantheistic Reality
2. God exists but not in the way we think of religion
3. Most religious concepts like "sin" do not exist.
4. Reincarnation in some form exists

These are the challenges I am sure Spielberg is thinking of.

Answer from a Geocentric.

God is certainly the God, Lord and Creator of every creature, whether that creature is rational or irrational, and if rational whether he knows it or not. On earth and inside Earth, as much as above, in Heaven, both planetary Heavens, the sphere of the Fix stars, and God's own Empyrean Heaven (His reception room, which Ezechiel and Daniel and John saw).

This, however, does not mean there are civilisations elsewhere "throughout" the universe, except if you like to say the angels are a civilisation. Enoch and Elijah are guests with them, on a planetary heaven, and biological rational beings (unless angels be biological, a minority view in Catholicism) do not exist apart from on Earth or where they have gone after their life on Earth, like down to Hell or up to Heaven.

An experiencer who thinks he has met an alien civilisation has presumably met a demon, perhaps in some rare cases an angel.

Reality isn't pantheistic.
God is the God of Catholic Christianity. One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to Whom be Ever Glory.
Sin does exist. Original and mortal sin leads to damnation. Venial sin weakens the resistance to mortal sin.
Reincarnation doesn't exist.

And if someone believes he is reincarnated, a memory of a prior life, he presumably has been deluded by a demon or at the very best experienced an art work with full immersion, but he has no proof he is the same person as the one whose life he recalls, or even that that person existed.

However, deluded by a demon is not a match for "deluded" in the psychiatric sense, as St. Augustine states, so, thank Spielberg for helping experiencers out of asylums where they don't belong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Barnabas Apostle
11.VI.2026

Salaminae, in Cypro, natalis sancti Barnabae Apostoli, qui, natione Cyprius, cum Paulo Gentium Apostolus a discipulis ordinatus, multas regiones cum eo peragravit, injunctum sibi opus Evangelicae praedicationis exercens; postremo, Cyprum profectus, ibi Apostolatum suum glorioso martyrio decoravit. Ejus corpus, tempore Zenonis Imperatoris, ipso Barnaba revelante, repertum est, una cum codice Evangelii sancti Matthaei, ejusdem Barnabae manu descripto.

J'écrivis un défi à Matthieu Lavagna

Le voici :

Répliques Assorties : L'amalgame entre Héliocentrisme et Platisme me gave
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2026/05/lamalgame-entre-heliocentrisme-et.html

Le blog a eu depuis la plupart des 833 vues dans une semaine, et pourquoi pensé-je que parmi les 27 lecteurs de France, il y aurait forcément quelqu'un de Marianne ?

Je viens de le suborner dans une mise à jour, que je reprend intégralement, d'abord :

Je viens de mettre le post avec lien vers votre vidéo et mes deux commentaires il y a une semaine.

Depuis, le blog en total, avec ce post en tête, a eu 833 vues, dont ...

États-Unis 220, Viêt Nam 211, Hong Kong 84, Canada 45, France 27, Singapour 23, Indonésie 18, Allemagne 16

... et la France n'est pas séparé des autres pays par quelque huis clos.

Vous n'avez pas répondu. Ni fait une vidéo de réponse.

Par contre, hier, Vladimir de Gmeline et Michaël Stora (cité par le premier) ont fait un article en Marianne contre le platisme dans lequel ils évoquent indirectement le géocentrisme.

Est-ce que votre curé vous a demandé à me regarder comme un platiste un peu refoulé ? Parce que le sale menteur Sébastien Antoni, prétendu Assomptionniste, après que je le taxe d'apostat ou hérétique pour son déni d'un couple Adam et Ève individuels, dans un débat auquel je le cite en ligne, me taxe de platiste.

Ses mots verbatim : "bonne promenade sur ta terre plate" ... aussi, bien entendu, une incitation à rester dans un état (présumé, pas réel) de vagabond. Et puisque le prétendu archevêque ne l'a pas discipliné, vous et votre curé, vous êtes en communion avec lui. Je ne sais pas si l'écrivain à Marianne est en communion avec vous ou avec une forme ou autre de l'Église russe.

Pardon, corrigeons la citation : "Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous"

Bien, pour l'instant (et encore une fois depuis aujourd'hui), Marianne peut suivre mon profile FB, car je viens de leur envoyer une réplique à Natacha Polony :

New blog on the kid: Natacha Polony, est-elle contre les curés en soutane (et leurs ouailles) ?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/05/natacha-polony-est-elle-contre-les.html

Dedans, je me qualifie d'intégriste catholique. Et certains savent que je me qualifie (sans réserve, contrairement au mot Fasciste) de Géocentrique : la Terre est stable, fixe au centre de l'univers entier, ou au moins de l'univers visible, celui-ci tourne chaque jour autour de la Terre, parce que Dieu le tourne, le Soleil, la Lune et certains autres astres font des rétards parce que les anges qui les font bouger les mettent dans une balade autour du Zodiac dans l'autre sens.

L'éther qui est pour moi un candidat pour ce que la Genèse appelle le firmament, qui est la substance d'espace, donc le lieu de localité, le médium des vecteurs, et qui a une solidarité des parties rappelant celle d'un solide sans être un solide, est chaque jour mû par Dieu autour de nous, en presque 24 h, soit en 23 h 56 min 4.0905 s. L'éther meut le Soleil avec lui, sauf pour le déplacement du Soleil dedans, ce déplacement comportant un apogée et un périgée solaires (nommés par héliocentriques aphélium et perihélium) et dans les deux autres dimensions, une ellipse autour du zodiac qui prend 366 et un peu moins qu'un quart des jours sidéréaux ou 365 et un peu moins qu'un quart des jours solaires. Et c'est un ange qui meut le soleil de cet autre mouvement.

Ceci, à part des questions de précision, et à part que St. Thomas d'Aquin posait que la sphère des étoiles fixes mouvrait la sphère du soleil par friction entre solides, à travers les étapes sphères de Saturne, Jupiter, Mars, est la vue de St. Thomas d'Aquin sur jour et nuit et sur les saisons. Je la partage.

St. Thomas d'Aquin, comme moi-même, on tient que la Terre, en tant que corps dans l'espace, est ronde. Un globe. Une sphère remplie de matière (sauf le creux dans le centre même qui abrite l'Enfer). Cette position n'a rien à voir avec le platisme.

Mais certains voudraient la faire avoir quelque chose avec. Genre, un certain Anarchiste, ex-Communiste, ayant été flic colonial et sdf en travail chez les restaurants, un certain George Orwell, écrivit un jour un roman, et ce roman fait figurer un autre livre. 1984 implique l'existence d'un livre laissé en arrière par Goldstein, et dans ce livre, Goldstein en tenant d'une Terre ronde (correcte) et de l'Heliocentrisme (incorrecte) s'insurge contre le dictat politique de croire en Terre plate et Géocentrisme. Donc, Orwell, à travers son porteparole Goldstein, lie les deux questions. En soi, elles ne sont pas liées.

J'ai vue l'article de Marianne. N° 1524. Par Vladimir de Gmeline, qui semble être petit-fils d'un Vladimir Vassilievietch de GMELINE, sans doute exilé après la Révolution. Puisque l'article contient une citation de Michaël Stora, que de Gmeline semble prendre pour un expert, c'est à dire un oracle de Delphes, car la question est inaccessible à l'observation directe et donc à la science (dans le sens de St. Thomas), citons d'abord celui-ci :

C'est la toute-puissance de l'imaginaire contre le réel, contre l'autre qui veut exercer sa toute-puissance.

Pour un psychanalyste, le mot "toute-puissance" peut être un terme banalisé, comme les explication du syndrome d'Œdipe, mais comme ces explications évoqueraient pour quelqu'un non initié une volonté d'inceste, ainsi le mot "toute-puissance" évoquerait un délire de grandeur. La pseudo-prophétie sous couvert de pseudo-science aggresse les platistes. Et en quoi ça me concerne, n'étant pas moi-même platiste ? Je vais à de Gmeline :

Première idée fausse sur cette croyance [=le platisme, donc] elle serait le fruit des religions, d'une forme d'obscurantisme chrétien et moyenâgeux, que la découverte des Amériques par Christophe Colombe, les voyages de Magellan, et le travail d'astronomes modernes comme Copernic et Galilée auraient permis à mettre en bas.

Il y a cette petite phrase :

et le travail d'astronomes modernes comme Copernic et Galilée

À une lecture hâtive (peut-être à une lecture meilleure aussi, pas encore faite), de Gmeline n'expàlique jamais, grand jamais, que le géocentrisme et l'héliocentrisme (prôné dans une forme très non-moderne par Copernic et Galilée, qui semblent avoir cru dans la sphère des étoiles fixes, incompatible depuis 1838 avec le géokinétisme) sont totalement un autre débat.

Non, il se hâte à dire que la Terre Plate n'a jamais été enseigné par l'Église de manière autotitative. Et tait que, le Géocentrisme, par contre, oui.

Peut-être est-il comme l'exilé l'était probablement, Orthodoxe russe en quelque déclinaison (Patriarcat de Moscou, Hors Frontières, rue Daru). Alors il se fiche du décret de Pape Urbain VIII de répandre le jugement de 1633 dans le monde Catholique entier, et il se permet à ne pas tenir compte de St. Robert Bellarmin.

Peut-être est-il Vatican-Deux-iste, et donc pour lui, un Saint Cardinal comme Robert Bellarmin serait dépassé par un "saint pape" (ni ni) comme Wojtyla, en 1992.

Dans les deux cas, et encore d'autres pensables, il pense faire du bien en passant l'éponge, moyennant le non-platisme de l'Église, sur le géocentrisme de celui-ci. Et pour les Catholiques encore géocentriques, il ne se gêne pas (comme le fourbe Sébastien Antoni) de le jeter en pâture aux psychoanalystes et aux psychiatres éventuellent aussi. Car la France, comme la Suède, a une psychiatrie fort proche de celle de Khrouchtchev, c'est à dire, politisée, capable de prendre pour délire des questions de visions du monde.

Délire, exemple classique. L'Empereur François Joseph visite un asyle de fous. Il serre la main d'un patient, se présentant comme "der Kaiser" et reçoit la réponse "oh, je le croyais aussi, quand j'arrivais" ... l'homme qui se prenait pour l'Empereur avait dedans un délire. Autre exemple classique. Un certain pauvre, dont la fille absente en faisant carrière, imagine qu'elle soit devenue princesse d'un pays qu'on peut traduire comme "Portugaule" ... en ayant aquis qu'il sera lui-même l'Empereur du "Portugaule" ... autre exemple. Les 4 As ont affaire avec un homme qui se prend pour Napoléon (I), dans Les 4 as et l'aéroglisseur. Pour l'info, je ne me prend pas pour Napoléon I^er, je me prend pour Doct, un peu doublé de Bouffi.

En aucun de ces cas, on n'est dit "souffrir un délire" parce qu'on croit que Dieu existe, parce qu'on croit que les anges existent, parce qu'on croit que Jésus est ressuscité ou parce qu'on croit que la Terre a 6000—7500 ans. Ni parce qu'on croit qu'elle bouge ou parce qu'on croit qu'elle ne bouge pas. Ni parce qu'on attribue son immobilité et la mobilité d'autres choses plus grandes à Dieu et aux anges. Par contre, dans une psychiatrie soviétique, ceci serait un dérive trop crédible, qui s'est déjà fait. Et pour des psychiatres suédois, le fait de dire "une culture non-chrétienne est influencée par les démons" serait l'équivalent d'un complotisme énorme, puisque la méchanceté des démons, invisibles, ne serait pas à distinguer d'une méchanceté secrète des gens non-chrétiens eux mêmes.

En revanche, la question se pose sous deux angles. Point commun : le Terre ne peut pas être stable et le Soleil et l'univers pas en train de circuler autour, si masses, gravitation, inertie sont les seules facteurs, sans d'acteur volontaires. De là on peut raissonner, soit "or, il n'y a pas d'acteurs volontaires à cette échelle, donc la physique newtonienne fait que la Terre bouge, même si nous voyons l'inverse" soit "or, nous voyons que la Terre est stable et que l'univers bouge autour, donc un acteur, ou plusieurs acteurs coordonnés par un seul acteur, fait bouger l'univers ou font bouger les astres autour de nous". Cet acteur capable à mouvoir l'univers autour de nous, tout le monde s'accorde à l'appeler Dieu.

Et quand à "toute-puissance de l'imaginaire contre le réel" ça commence quand des héliocentriques commencent à faire de la pub contre notre vue commune des choses en faisant appel à la perspective alternative des éventuels habitants d'autres corps célestes. Genre, Kepler dans Le Songe ou l'Astronomie lunaire ou Euler dans Lettres à une princesse prusse.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Vendredi de Quatre-Temps de Pentecôte
29.V.2026