Relevant Expert?

Are Claims Evidence? · Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence? · Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence · Relevant Expert?

I totally rely on the testimony of those who have studied the Krebs cycle about the Krebs cycle. (47:15 into the video)

But "testimony of relevant expert" depends a bit.

The citric acid cycle—also known as the Krebs cycle, Szent–Györgyi–Krebs cycle, or TCA cycle (tricarboxylic acid cycle)—is a series of biochemical reactions that release the energy stored in nutrients through acetyl-CoA oxidation. The energy released is available in the form of ATP.

I have no chemical equipment or equipment of biological extraction to study it, so, I rely on Albert Szent-Györgyi and Sir Hans Adolf Krebs.

No problem.

Why don't I extend the exact same confidence to a shrink, to a carbon dater or to a Heliocentric, when they are experts?

Some observations in psychiatry can be arranged by deliberate bullying. If hebephrenia leads to paranoia, that may have more to do with bullying than with hebephrenia or its underlying causes. Sleeplessness can be arranged with sleep privation. Intrusive tampering with someone's situation may not leave that person where he was before the tampering, so what you see may be what you came to see. And wouldn't have needed to.

The carbon dater and I cannot directly observe what the atmospheric content of carbon 14 was around the trees which gave charcoal to Göbekli Tepe. He will presume the original content in the sample, and the content in the atmosphere, was c. 100 pmC (the Hallstatt plateau, which we agree on, involves the atmosphere in 750 BC carbon dating to 200 years into the future, which translates to 102.449 pmC, and in 450 BC carbon dating 100 years into the past, which translates to 98.798 pmC. That's why a sample from 750 or 450 BC, or any time in between, typically carbon dates to 550 BC).

But I will allow the Biblical history (which has a higher epistemic value, simply as history, than indirect science) to infer that carbon 14 rose in the atmosphere and sometimes came from a lower initial value. 9500 BC isn't a date. 2608 BC is. In 2608 BC, 350 years after the Flood, when Babel / Göbekli Tepe started*, the atmosphere was at c. 43 pmC. Which also matches what in 2608 BC a sample originating from 100 pmC in 9500 BC would have had. He and I agree that in 2608 BC that sample had c. 43 pmC. But he interprets this as decay after the sample was sealed off, I interpret it as initial condition of the sample.

Neither the Heliocentric nor I can view Sun and Earth from a fixed point outside Earth. He'll presume the 0.76 arc seconds** about α Centauri being due to Earth moving, I'll presume they'll be due to the star moving. AND, I will presume the c. 20 arc second all stars move, "aberration" is also not due to earth, but to the stars. That's the background against which the parallax is measured. He will find this forms a triangle including the 2 Astronomic Units between two positions of the Earth. I'll not presume the star has the exact same pace as the Sun, so I'll not presume the distance between two positions of the star, parallax or aberration, are 2 Astronomic Units like two positions of the Sun are.

That we have different presuppositions leads to us having different conclusions. No need, on this level, to assume he's dishonest, but also no need to accept an "expert testimony" in a paradigm I have reasons to see as false. I think an actual scientist sharing my presuppositions would do a better job than me, but we would both do, and I'm the one actually doing a better job (on a level) than the scientist who has false presuppositions, before he tests the remaining carbon 14 level*** before he observes the star and perhaps not least, barring fatigue on my part, before he judges the man.

Again, a historian is a relevant expert on history. However, he's not the primary source of testimonial evidence.

In the example about the scientist, F is the fact the scientist studies, but F* is his testimony. But in history, you have F as the fact a historic person observed or reported observations of, F* is his report of own or someone else's observation, and the modern historian is in his turn giving only F**, his testimony of his evaluation of F* as relating to F. In a case where I have or the historian provides access to F*, I thereby have as good an access as he to the actual fact F.

Mutatis mutandis, in some cases he really has accessed very many F* (old chronicles) which I haven't. But in some cases, there only is one old chronicle for a fact. A grammar example is "Caesar fecit pontem ad lacum Genavam" and I'm afraid it could be just a grammar example, that an actual quote from Bellum Gallicum would be more like "Caesar ruit pontem ad lacum Genavam" (Caesar destroyed a bridge at Lake Geneva, rather than built one°) but either way, the only way we know of the events in c. 50 BC at Lake Geneva is what Caesar wrote. We have no independent confirming evidence.

One source from back then actually is enough.

Now, in some cases, we have sources that are not even contemporary. Any source for Alexander conquering Persia from Greece is centuries after the fact. The earliest narrative is in 1 Maccabees. Arrian is later.

This obviously gives me a certain perspective on the kind of "historians" who deal with the New Testament, not as Church Historians, but as Biblical Scholars, evaluating if NT events really happened. They have a tendency to use arguments that either aren't used or weren't usually used previously, on events in extra-Biblical events.

The other day I compared two views of the epistemology of Babel / Göbekli Tepe, between what I think went on as a Young Earth Creationist, and what a tradition would have looked like if Catalog number AO-6018 had been about what a video purported it to be about. It seems the video°° is wrong or deliberately planted to be misleading, but the principle remains that oral tradition over few centuries to millennia with Biblical patriarcal lifespans is better attested than one over many more millennia with modern lifespans.

Oral traditions are a valid transmission, unless the number of minimally overlapping generations are too many. As they would be between Göbekli Tepe if it were actually from 8000 BC and Sumeria, for a depiction like Madeleine Daines' tablet, or a description like the one spuriously attributed to Catalog number AO-6018. As they weren't between even Genesis 2 and 3 and Abraham, let alone between Babel and Abraham, if the patriarcal lifespans hold.

Now, I do think the patriarcal lifespans do hold, and I would NOT believe someone claiming today to be 900 years old, the next persons we'll meet who lived way beyond normal lifespans of today will be Henoch and Elijah. But I do believe lifespans were shortened. The expert who believes they weren't true in the first place isn't giving testimony to an actual observation, he's giving testimony to his prejudice. Again, the prejudice may be very honest, the expert may be very honest, but the prejudice would still be misleading him and misleading those who trust him.

Ultimately, my reply to someone who wanted me to trust expert evidence more than I do would get the reply that I don't think he'd trust an astrologer. And mind you, I'm not saying the astrologer is a charlatan either, he's just a believer in his, false, system.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

PS, Joe is off on this one:

and then they learned that basically every single relevant competent expert accepts anthropogenic climate change and evolution that should that clearly should boost their credence in the proposition.

So, Georgia Purdom, who is a geneticist is not a single person, is not competent, or is not relevant for evolution being genetically impossible? Come on. But Joe does some hedging:

• "basically" = not literally, there are exceptions, but I don't care
• "relevant" = if a petrol searcher steps in to do Flood geology, I don't care, since evolutionary geology wasn't his main field
• "competent" = no one can step in, not just from a side discipline, but also not from amateurs ...

The only thing he should have added to make his alibi for believing evolution complete is "that I've heard of" ... supposing he genuinely is ignorant of the competence of experts in Creation Ministries International or Answers in Genesis./HGL

PPS, he gave examples "like the ice core data" which Tas Walker has looked on, or "like the fossils" which I have looked on from the site "palaeocritti" before it shut down. Parts of it, I could salvage on the salvage blog Palaeocritti Blog. While making it, I could read through sufficiently of the original site, done by experts, to know the fossil configurations of Algeria, Antarctica, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Niger, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, United Kingdom and just part of the United States, namely Arizona. I specially concentrated on land fossils, and no, you do not in these places find two layers of land fossils from different eras on top of each other. Especially not in Karoo, South Africa, which is where I started looking. A Capitanian fossil like Hipposaurus boonstrai isn't below a Wuchiapingian fossil like Gorgonops, just because Wuchiapingian is Upper and Capitanian Middle Permian. Instead you find Gorgonops in Tropidostoma assemblage zone and Hipposaurus in Tapinocephalus assemblage zone. These are side by side (contiguously or not, not sure) in the landscape, not different levels in a single dig./HGL

* On my reasons for Babel being roughly between 350 and 401 after the Flood, between Noah's death and Peleg's birth, and on Göbekli Tepe being Babel, elsewhere.

** One arc second is like the angle in the centre of Earth to two points on the surface 30.86 meters apart, so 0.76 arc seconds is like to two points 23.46 meters apart.

*** For a typical sample from Göbekli Tepe, it would be by now c. 25 pmC.

2608 + 2026 = 4634 years. 0.5^(4634 / 5730) = 0.5708857658404267,
43 * 0.5708857658404267 = 24.548 pmC.
2557 + 2026 = 4583 years. 0.5^(4583 / 5730) = 0.57441865962648,
51 * 0.57441865962648 = 29.295 pmC.

5730 * log(0.24548)/log(0.5) - 2026 AD = 9585 BC
5730 * log(0.29295)/log(0.5) - 2026 AD = 8123 BC

° Who can hear of Lac Leman / Lake Geneva without imagining a kidnapping of Professor Calculus? As to the grammar example, it illustrates that Caesar need not have built or destroyed with his own hands, a good translation would be "had a bridge built" or "had a bridge destroyed" rather than "built" or "destroyed" since he obviously gave the orders, but many others collaborated to execute them.

°° The Last Sumerian Who Remembered Göbekli Tepe — What He Wrote Before Dying (2900 BCE), which I cited. It seems Catalog number AO-6018 had a very different content, which can be gathered from the wiki article Tirigan, the tablet is the Utu-hengal victory stele. But the principle is valid for other Sumerian artefacts that seem to recall Göbekli Tepe, like the tablet found by Madeleine Daines and commented on by Graham Hancock.

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?

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.

Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence?

Are Claims Evidence? · Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence? · Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence · Relevant Expert?

Previous essay was written after 2 minutes 51 seconds into a video by Joe Schmid. Here we stop again, at 30:01.

The claim is not evidence. And if it were, then why wouldn't every claim be sufficient for you to accept it?

Matt Dillahunty seems to lack a nuance between "no evidence" and "evidence as strong as to constitute a sufficient proof" ...

In context, why wouldn't I believe a friend stating he had gone to another galaxy in a space ship and come back?

If a very honest friend made such a claim, and didn't specify he had himself driven the spaceship, I would presume abduction by aliens, and I would presume the real story is demons showed him things which weren't true.

Real sense information to him, but from faked stimuli.

But if he did specify to building the spaceship and driving it, the friend would need to answer on points where his credibility would break down:

• why did no one see you building things in the garage?
• how did the speed work?
• how with such a speed did you avoid getting the spaceship perforated at the first collision with simple dust?

I wouldn't ask this kind of question about the Ascension, because it wasn't a spaceship and because the omnipotence of God, by definition, is a sufficient answer to the other two problems. But I would ask it about the spaceship, because it's definitionally human technology and so, definitionally, not divine omnipotence.

And, in general, I would not ask the question "how did God acquire omnipotence in a universe otherwise determined only by finite powers in vectors" etc. because that question would not be adressing the God that the miracle is being referred to. The more appropriate question is "how did the universe come to be determined by finite powers in vectors, given that God is omnipotent?" and the question would first ask "is the universe in general only determined by finite powers" (no, God's omnipotence is involved every day-and-night) and second "insofar as that is partially true, it's because wanted it and being omnipotent, He had no problem in having it."

This means that the only question I find relevant for the Ascension is, do we have sufficient testimonial evidence?

With a sufficient number of people who knew Jesus sufficiently well ...

Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God
[Acts Of Apostles 1:2-3]

[The detailed account of what they saw and heard]

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James
[Acts Of Apostles 1:13]

... we can rule out "simple mistake" including the version "hallucination" ... with supernatural healings, we can also rule out that they were deceived by demons. And with the fact of this being a claim, and not an entertainment story, we can rule out "entertainment stories can invent anything" (from Peter Parker getting genes from a spider to his working on Daily Bugle).

The only two remaining questions are:

• Is it possible they deceived their audience?
• Is it possible this was invented as a later deception?

Both hypotheses can be infirmed.

Deceived people may die as martyrs for things they have been deceived to believing, but deceivers don't die as martyrs for things they know to be deceptions, because they were behind the deceptions.

A Christian movement that originally didn't contain any of this would not have accepted a new story as what they had always remembered. On this issue, I take issue with C. J. Cornthwaite who pretends that this was all invented in the Second Century.

Now, I believe him, the earliest evidence he has found and there is for the book of Acts being cited by some early Christian writer is indeed in the Second Century. But given the brevity of First Century information other than Bible books (for which he grants some Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse to be First Century), the absence of citation of Acts is not remarkably significant. Clement has no more need to cite it than St. Paul has when writing to the same Corinthian Church earlier, since most of it is irrelevant or already known to the recipients. Revelation or Apocalypse only for two churches, Ephesus and Smyrna, coincides with Churches Paul founded. Wait, Acts doesn't mention Smyrna. Make it Ephesus and Thyatira. However, Acts doesn't show in detail how the Church of Thyatira was founded, it gives as prequel two baptised households, Lydia's and the Centurion's, after which Paul and Silas are expelled before founding any actual Church. Colossians mentions Laodicea, in a context making it probable that Laodicea was at this time just one housechurch, that of Nymphas, while the main Church was as yet in Colossae. None of the seven Churches is given much text, so citations of or coincidences with Acts would not be expected. Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if presence of evidence would be a logical expectation from reality of sth.

In other words, his observation gives me no ground on which to criticise the historicity of Acts. Which leaves us with the general probability, a community doesn't cease to believe in its remembered origins in order to instead adopt a new-old and newly invented one.

The story of Acts was not tacked onto Christianity in the Second Century. Just as Sacrifice of the Mass was not tacked onto Christianity in the time of Constantine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

Are Claims Evidence?

Are Claims Evidence? · Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence? · Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence · Relevant Expert?

Matt Dillahunty

Short Version:

Claims aren't evidence.

Long version:

A claim is not evidence of the truth of itself / of that same claim.

Joe Schmid:

I'm not sure what that means.

The obvious problem is, does Dillahunty mean ever at all, or does he mean in specific contexts where there are specific reasons to doubt the claim?

If he means ever at all, he's obviously wrong.

If he means in specific contexts, why not ask whether the Gospels' claims about Jesus or Catholicism's claim about itself could be outside those contexts?

Another obvious problem, kind of related is, does he mean any kind of preliminary evidence, does he mean sufficient evidence or does he mean evidence trumping anything and everything else?

Everyone would agree that not all claims are sufficient evidence or evidence trumping everything else. That would fall on the item that claims contradict.

Here are three claims that contradict:

• Christianity isn't true, the Gospels don't portray the real Jesus (usually meaning "who wasn't divine" but can also mean "who was actually an avatar of Vishnu, like Krishna or Buddha") and there is no sense in looking for the Church he founded since he didn't have the will or the power to preserve it.
• Christianity is true, Catholicism is the Church Jesus founded (alternatives to "Catholicism" include "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Coptic Church", "Branch Theory", "Baptist Continuity" but not Lutheranism or Anglicanism).
• Christianity is true, but Catholicism misunderstands the idea of continuity and therefore implications about a "one true Church" (position of Lutherans, Anglicans, Gavin Ortlund), and it's not all that institutional.
• A fourth, Christianity is true, there is no institutional continuity and a Restorationist Church is obliging (position of Mormons, JW, Churches of God).

Each of these claims cannot be a trumping claim or even sufficient claim of the truth of the claim itself. At least three of the four versions needs to be at most only preliminary evidence which means that they are evidence until facing stronger evidence. Or not even that.

And as to claim two, each version of it, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Orthodox of the East, Baptist Continuity, Albigensian Continuity, possibly even Branch Theory, is at rivalry with the other versions in such a way that not each of the claims can be sufficient evidence.

But this is also the strongest version I can give Dillahunty. Baptist and Albigensian continuity aren't equal to Catholic continuity. The claim "look, we are the Church you find here 200 years ago" is stronger than "we are a Church that 200 years ago was very hidden, so don't look for it" ... again, a claim from a community about the origins of the own group, of the "in-group" as modern sociologists would say, is stronger than a specific claim about an "out-group" of another group than itself. Communities, like persons have memories. Communities, like persons, are often honest about themselves to outsiders, and it's hard for a community to be dishonest to insiders, apart from shell games. Communities, like persons, are often angry at each other and can say pretty rough stuff about each other which isn't necessarily true.

For instance, if I were assessing the rival claims of Judaism and Christianity, which I'm not, I'm already Christian, I might expect both to be dishonest about each other. But what John says about Jews is no match for putting Targum Onkelos in a tractate of the own Talmud known as Gittin. So, on that issue, I'd say Christianity wins by being more honest about Jews than Jews are about Christians, as near as one can get back to the point of divergence. But I didn't find this out before chosing Christianity over Judaism.

But this poses the circumstance that claims are not equal, and claims are therefore not equally "not evidence of themselves" ...

"Jesus was Crucified and appeared to disciples" is stronger than "Jesus was stoned and then hanged" ... bc Josephus mentions Jesus in the Roman period, after or along with Theudas, and not in the pre-Roman period, when the presumed disciple of Joshua Ben Perakhia would have lived. Josephus mentions Jesus' disciples as still being a tribe, but it's impossible to trace Christians all the way back from the time of John Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus.

Which brings us to the fact that both the Gospels and Josephus (yes, I uphold the Testimonium Flavianum) are giving evidence by claims which taken together are stronger than the counterclaim in the Talmud. Even to the so far undecided. One reason why so many Jews these days aren't using Gittin or the Talmud, but rather go with Atheist or Humanist versions of what Jesus really was about. Illustrating that the rejection of Jesus by Jews hasn't been able to stay with one claim, they have shifted ground, more than once.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVth LD after Pentecost
6.IX.2026

I'll now resume a video where Joe Schmid replies to Dillahunty, which is from where I resumed above "dialogue", here it is: Why CLAIMS are often EVIDENCE (answer will SHOCK you)

Is This Something to Question? I Think So

NEW Charlie Kirk Footage Raises MAJOR Questions
The Young Turks | 26 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlOuUFJWq-Q

Prayers for a Girl Named Lillian

She contracted an amoeba and* asked Knowles for prayers, Anthony Stine shared, so do I.

Rosaries if you can./HGL

* Sorry, her dad did. Not she. That's how serious it is.

Flintstones Dates and My Production

Began

30 September 1960

Add 20 000 days

4th of July 2015

no production this exact day

Ended

1 April 1966

Add 20 000 days

2 January 2021

Robert Carter did a Great Job of Summing Up Here

Death of Alan Reed

(Fred Flintstone)

June 14, 1977

Add 15 000 days

9 July 2018

Prayers that Repeat, For the Dead and Matthew 28 - with PM · On Ireland with Roger Buck · IT Lesson for Roger Buck · À voir ensemble (FR) · More Spammers' Choice - Encore Choix des Spammeurs (FR/ENG)

Death of Jean Vander Pyl

(Wilma Flintstone, Pebbles Flintstone)

10 April 1999

Add 10 000 days

26 Aug 2026 (that's recent)

Christ's Cross, for Christians of Yore · Prayers for a Girl Named Lillian · Why is St. Erasmus St. Elmo in Italian?

Death of Mel Blanc

(Barney Rubble and Dino)

10 July 1989

Add 10 000 days

25 November 2016

... on Wiki (For Morons or Not Only?) (Featuring JPHolding) · Pour éviter un malentendu (FR) · Election Regret : Why Did Catholics Not Know of Darrell Castle?

Death of Bea Benaderet

(Betty Rubble)

13 October 1968

Add 20 000 days

17 July 2023

"Et les croyants, qu'est-ce qui vous empêche de croire dans les dieux des autres religions ?" (FR) · A Certain Film Was Discussed · What Does Antisemite Mean? · Introibo Blogger Has Well Defended the True Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth · Est-ce que le Créationnisme est un Gnosticisme ? Non. (FR)

Death of Gerry Johnson

(also Betty Rubble)

24 January 1990

Add 10 000 days

11 June 2017

Some guys tried to make her ridiculous instead of responding intelligently · Om Barnevernet (NO) · ... on St. Basil

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.

L'égo est une carapace qui ne se détache pas

Paris n'est pas moins connu pour ses graffiti, dont certains en textes et en des textes très aphoristiques.

J'ai vu celui-ci au 13°.

Il y a une réponse.

Certains organismes, dont l'homme, ont une carapace intérieure qui n'a pas vocation de se détacher. On l'appelle normalement un squelette.

Je n'aimerais pas être détaché de mon squelette (au moins pas avant la mort)./HGL

Certains prétendraient que je ne travaille pas ... faux

Des intrigues à Nanterre U · Je viens de voire Hitler décrit comme "trempé en essentialisme créationniste" · Certains prétendraient que je ne travaille pas ... faux

Et d'autres que mon travail serait illégal, probablement faux aussi, vu leur acharnement de me bloquer plutôt que de me dénoncer pour des délits de presse.

Pourquoi je dis ceci ?

Parce que ... après le gobelet, c'est le passeport.

Juste perdu ?

Pourquoi alors tellement de trucs autour ...

Mais je vais d'abord montrer en avance deux statistiques de la dernière semaine, à hier le 2 sept. :

Allemagne
754 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 9 + 1 + 9 + 77 + 1 + 28 + 2 + 2 + 7 + 4 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 108 + 25 + 708 + 77 + 1 + 2 + 24 + 91 + 2 + 140 = 2101 = 2,1 k
2,1 k + 4,5 k + 6,01 k + 10,9 k + 3,05 k = 26,56 k

France
1 + 154 + 21 + 1 + 25 + 3 + 1 + 59 + 1 + 2 + 7 + 1 + 6 + 1 + 18 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 73 + 115 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 4 + 1 + 38 + 16 + 16 + 5 + 15 + 33 = 636 = 0,64 k
0,64 k + 1,35 k + 3,36 k + 1,76 k = 7,11 k

Comparons six semaines qui précèdent, pour les deux pays :

Allemagne ... 2915 ... 13,65 k ... 29,25 k ... 5,51 k ... 11,33 k ... 14,99 k ...
France ... 3087 ... 8,14 k ... 9,42 k (8,22 k sans la Guyane) ... 25,71 k ... 8,45 k ... 8,12 k ...

Allemagne remonte en pique et la France baisse, sinon au niveau d'avant*, au moins qu'elle touche presque juste les 1000 vues par jour.

Genre, quelqu'un, peut-être d'Allemagne, est en train de me prétendre un inutile qui ne mérite pas les lecteurs.

Mais revenons aux faits.

1) Mon écriture créationniste est au risque d'être tamponnée comme raciste, à cause de malentendus absurdes, pas toujours involontaires, répandus (notamment dans la gauche).
2) Des gens, notamment un gardien de sécurité, qui aurait un mobile d'en vouloir aux racistes (réels ou imaginaires), commencent à se mettre contre moi.

Y a-t-il un lien qui manque ? Oui, le voici :

3) Ceci justement quand je suis en train d'écrire des choses créationnistes.

Ce que j'ai à vous montrer. La gardien Beur, 27 août, le gardien Noir, 28 août. Retenez.

Le 23 août

Imagine the Babel Dispersal Happened 101 after the Flood · AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology

Le 24

Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

Le 25

Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

Le 26

[rien que je n'écris sur mon blog, à ce sujet, mais je commence à regarder une vidéo par Robert Sungenis, et écris une chose dans le chat, qui sera visible plus tard le même soir, il s'agit sur les jours de création 2 et 4 dans le premier chapitre de la Genèse]

Le 27

Some of the Articles Contain Some Technical Stuff

Le 28

(après l'incident)

Robert Sungenis Graciously Answered my Question in the Livestream

Le 29

Clay Tablet. Catalog number AO-6018 · Sam McKee Featured St. Augustine, Philo and Josephus · Catholicism Doesn't Have These Problems

Les 30 et 31

[rien écrit, sur ce sujet, mais l'incident a déjà eu lieu]

Le 1er septembre

Je viens de voire Hitler décrit comme "trempé en essentialisme créationniste" (FR) · Supervalcanoes from the Flood, but Why Campi Flegrei? · Serranía de La Lindosa

Le 2

A Templar Doesn't Want Me to Be Catholic? (publié le 2, l'échange avait déjà eu lieu le 1er).

C'est donc le soir du 1er septembre que je trouve que la trousse ou la poche avec le passport me manque. J'allais probablement regarder mes timbres qui se trouvaient aussi dedans.

Je vais à la police, le commissariat. On me laisse parler avec un officier dans la porte, j'écris une déclaration de perte, déjà coché cette case, ayant signé, je l'offre au policier, qui me dit que non, c'est pour moi. Il m'a aussi dit, incorrectement, que pour me trouver en France, j'aurais, même en ressortissant du Schengen, besoin d'une carte de séjour au-delà des 3 premiers mois.

Or, je vérifie.** Je trouve pour être concerné :

Vous êtes concerné par la carte de séjour « citoyen UE/EEE/Suisse - Toutes activités professionnelles » si vous répondez aux 3 conditions suivantes :

• Vous êtes européen
• Vous avez votre résidence habituelle en France
• Vous exercez une activité professionnelle (salariée ou non) en France.

Mais je trouve aussi :

Si vous êtes Européen et venez travailler en France, vous pouvez demander un titre de séjour même si ce n'est pas obligatoire. Nous faisons le point sur cette règlementation qui varie en fonction de votre temps de présence en France.

Alors, deux choses à retenir. 1) Le travail n'est pas forcément salarié. 2) Et bien entendu, certains auto-emplois d'un indépendant sont reglémentés, mais ce n'est pas le cas avec un compositeur, auteur, écrivain. Ce que j'ai vérifié autre part.

Je suis probablement trop en retard pour y aller ce soir, ils ferment à 17 h et on a déjà 16, mais le truc est, je ne me suis pas rendu un fardeau pour le système social français, et rien dit qu'un écrivain ne puisse pas faire, tout d'abord, la démarche d'un musicien de rue, permettre l'accès et accepter des dons. Donc, j'espère pouvoir m'expliquer demain. Et la carte pourrait être utile à moins d'exiger une assurance maladie.***

Mais quelqu'un aurait voulu me rendre expulsable. Car sans passeport, et si on ne m'accorde pas carte de séjour non plus, je le serais, pour la première fois depuis 2010.° Et à défaut, on a voulu me rendre stressé, pour que mon manque de sommeil soit un souci "à noter" ... il y en a qui veulent que le temps que j'ai consacré tellement au créationnisme jeune terre et à une interprétation fondamentaliste soit compté comme un temps que j'aurais peut-être une cohérence amoindrie. Des choses qu'on peut arranger dans des cas comme ça. Si on est suffisamment criminel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pape St. Pie X
3 sept. 2026

20 Aug. Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.
3 Sept. Sancti Pii Papae Decimi, cujus natalis dies tertiodecimo Kalendas Septembris recensetur.

* Avant le 22 juillet.
** https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16003
*** J'ai une facture d'hôpital non payée, mais c'est depuis décembre, je ne m'y suis pas re-rendu et une fois arrivé un héritage je pourrais la payer. Quand j'avais d'argent, je payais les factures, ceci dit, dans le quartier, on a degradé ma santé, et j'en ai eu davantage qu'avant.
° Carte d'identité issue par une banque, donc de droit privé de mon pays, mais reconnu, m'avait servi entre 2005 et 2010.

Je viens de voire Hitler décrit comme "trempé en essentialisme créationniste"

Des intrigues à Nanterre U · Je viens de voire Hitler décrit comme "trempé en essentialisme créationniste" · Certains prétendraient que je ne travaille pas ... faux

Bien entendu, s'il avait été strictement gradualiste, il n'aurait fait mal à personne ... car aucun "degré" peut être "un degré de trop" ... non ?

Mais à part la question combien Hitler était raciste en réalité, et à part la question comment on use ou abuse Hitler comme "étalon du mal" ... il y a un autre problème, majeur.

Un créationniste biblique à beau être essentialiste.

Il ne peut pas tellement essentialiser les "races" qu'il leur attribue des qualités ayant une différence de dignité.*

Le Klan n'est pas créationniste biblique, il est adepte de la position de La Peyrère. Oui, celui que Paris honore en des noms de rues. Comme d'ailleurs Copernic.

Et Hitler n'était pas créationniste biblique, il était adepte d'un évolutionnisme, certes autre que celui de Darwin, mais quand même un évolutionnisme. Wallace. Blavatsky.

Theosophical Chronology in the Writings of Guido von List (1848–1919): A Link Between H.P. Blavatsky’s Philosophy and the Nazi Movement
May 2021 | Jeffrey D. Lavoie
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351464713_Theosophical_Chronology_in_the_Writings_of_Guido_von_List_1848-1919_A_Link_Between_HP_Blavatsky's_Philosophy_and_the_Nazi_Movement

Extrait d'un livre :

In book: Innovation in Esotericism from the Renaissance to the Present** (pp.255-279)

Mais pour certains, peu importe.

L'évolutionniste que j'ai lu avait juste envie de pousser Hitler dans le champ du Créationnisme biblique, même s'il était évolutionniste ésotérique.

Je me souviens d'athées qui ont voulu pousser Anders Behring Breivik dans le champ du Fondamentalisme chrétien. Il était "Chrétien" identitaire, mais en croyance il était (et reste peut-être) athée.

La véracité n'est pas le fort de mes adversaires. Et si j'ai quelque choses contre certains Noirs, c'est leur capacité de se faire les idiots utiles de ces adversaires.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Gilles
1.IX.2026

In provincia Narbonensi sancti Aegidii, Abbatis et Confessoris, cujus nomine est appellatum oppidum, quod postea crevit in loco, ubi ipse monasterium erexerat et mortalis vitae cursum absolverat.

* Au moins dignité essentielle. Le droit de devenir guardien de sécurité ou propriétaire d'entreprise dans un pays qui n'est pas le vôtre n'est pas donné dans la nature humaine.

** Innovation in Esotericism from the Renaissance to the Present
Édition en Anglais de Georgiana D. Hedesan (Sous la direction de), Tim Rudbøg (Sous la direction de) Format : Relié
https://www.amazon.fr/Innovation-Esotericism-Renaissance-Present-Georgiana/dp/3030679055

Donc, Georgiana D. Hedesan et Tim Rudbøg ont approuvé le texte de Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

Two Queen Mothers Against Tuberculosis

Netherlands:

She Was 20. He Was 61. The Marriage That Shocked Europe
Framed by History | 22 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzkhwyKtSg

Emma relocated to the palace on Lange Voorhout in the Hague, retaining only the modest title of Queen Mother. Yet her battle was not over. She merely turned her attention to a new adversary. Emma channeled her formidable energy and personal wealth into combating tuberculosis, the disease that had claimed her sister, and was devastating thousands of workingclass families.

Heaven, and Lourdes, Mary:

Jeanne Fretel
Visited Lourdes: 10 May 1948.

Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11 November 1950.

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

Emma, Queen Mother of the Netherlands disposed of a good fortune, but before antibiotics, all her fund could not heal tuberculose peritonitis.

Mary, Queen Mother of Heaven, disposes of the filial respect of God. He could./HGL