If you are a flat earth believer you’ll want to know how to respond when someone asks you if you believe in UFOs and Extraterrestrials from other planets. This video will tell you what they are and what they are not.
The goal of former President Trump’s ongoing investigations and prosecutions is to rig the 2024 presidential election, but the most recent indictment goes above and beyond by controlling even the election’s immediate aftermath.
The indictment by Democrat special counsel Jack Smith on January 6 criminalises election challenges, breaking new legal territory from converting misdemeanours into crimes to concluding that the statute of limitations is only a suggestion or at least opposition to Democrats in elections. And all political dissension with it.
Trump’s election challenges, according to the indictment from January 6, were illegal. What new information does this indictment include that the other ones did not? This one is meant to frighten any Republicans who might try to contest the results of the 2024 presidential election.
Democrats are criminalising political dissent before and after the forthcoming election because they were dissatisfied with indicting the top GOP primary contender in order to rig the election.
With its assertion that Trump was “determined to remain in power” and “spread lies” that there had been fraud, the indictment looks more like a Washington Post editorial. This is because it claims that Trump “created an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and eroded public faith in the administration of the election.”
Where is Al Gore’s prosecution if claiming that a presidential election was rigged is unlawful? Democrats have never been held accountable for spreading lies and starting investigations about their false claims that Trump was elected by the Russians, even when they did so in an effort to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger,” claiming that Bush was elected using hanging chads, contesting his election in Congress both times, or claiming that Bush was elected using hanging chads.
Democrats receive book deals, nighttime spots on MSNBC, and occasionally, like Al Gore, they even receive Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes when they propagate false information about an election.
Election challenges have been a common practise for more than 200 years, dating back to the presidential election of 1800. Election challenges are not a threat to free societies with transparent elections, and the Democrats have sunk a lot of money into their own attempts. In 2020, the Biden campaign invested $20 million in more than 60 post-election lawsuits.
Longtime Democratic ally Smith won’t be charging Marc Elias or Joe Biden. He is accusing Trump of conspiring to “obstruct” the “lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government,” as well as “obstructing and impeding the January 6 congressional proceeding” and “conspiracy against the right to vote.”
The 18 U.S. Code 371 becomes a flexible instrument for repressing a variety of political protest when publicly held election challenges are characterised as an attempt to “defraud” the United States government. By construing lobbying or any form of advocacy as the legal equivalent of tampering with evidence, 18 U.S. Code 1512 is weaponized against pretty much everyone attempting to affect the way the government works. This includes almost everyone with a political interest. Election fraud is turned into a civil right by using 18 U.S. Code 241, which was initially created to combat the KKK, against Trump and anybody attempting to confirm accurate election results.
Jack Smith’s indictment will result in an unparalleled repression of the political opposition, which will continue after Trump’s presidency and the election of 2024, in addition to the malicious misuse of federal law to target a political opponent. In order to criminalise most political parties and activities, Smith has done nothing less than take legal provisions and utilise them to create a criminal infrastructure comparable to that of communist China or Russia.
This was the totalitarian situation that Russiagate had only hinted at, but which is now fully realised with an indictment that is not only unconstitutional but also seeks to replace any kind of open political system with a paranoid surveillance state that ruthlessly eliminates any threat to “democracy” by abusing existing laws to target and imprison political opponents on the basis of their political affiliation.
And that’s truly what’s at risk here.
The indictment from January 6 heavily leans on editorialising about the danger to democracy, accusing the former president of “destabilising lies about election fraud” that “targeted a bedrock function of the federal government” without establishing why impinging on such functions should be illegal. If seeking out alternate electors and persuading state lawmakers are crimes, then almost every president before 1900 would have been imprisoned. ambitious politicians like Alexander Hamilton not included. Democrats have been trying to do away with the electoral college through the back door by adopting comprehensive measures like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is because every time they lose an election, they begin to scheme ways to do away with it.
Should the NPVIC be viewed as a criminal conspiracy against a “bedrock function of the federal government” together with the member states? The indictment of Jack Smith established a standard.
The indictment constantly accuses Trump and his associates of “fraud” on the basis that Biden won the election and that consequently contesting it is fraudulent, which is self-evident to Democrats. With language like “baseless fraud claims,” “sham election investigations,” and “false claims of election fraud,” Smith’s indictment grounds its allegations of fraud on those made by his own party. Instead of being governed by the law, all of them are the prosecutor’s political opinions.
And the indictment boils down to that. Is it against the law to oppose Democrats? All kinds of political resistance would be prohibited if it were true, as Smith claims in his indictment.
Democrats and their media claim that the indictment is politically neutral, despite the fact that it is not only the result of political prejudice but also can only exist as a Democratic political document with no application to a court system that is free from political bias. Democrats believe that Trump was making “false claims” about a contest that he didn’t win.
But that’s just an opinion, not a reality, like so much in politics.
Smith relentlessly presses Trump’s beliefs despite the fact that you can only arrest someone for their actions and not their beliefs since without them, there would be no crime. Furthermore, since there is no crime without a belief, then there never was a crime in the first place.
Because the Nevada Secretary of State had issued a “Facts vs. Myths” paper, among other things, Smith alleges that Trump made “false claims” with knowledge. The indictment states that it is unlawful for the Secretary of State of Nevada to disregard the authority of the President of the United States and that they cannot disagree.
Democrats who disagreed with Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ findings in 2000—who were afterwards criticised, intimidated, and made fun of—were not placed on trial. The relative politics of Republicans and Democrats, not their respective beliefs, are the problem.
For the past two generations, Democrats have made political disagreement a crime. Because they “deny” global warming, environmental activists demand that oil and gas firms be charged with fraud. If police forces deny claims of systemic racism, civil rights investigations may be launched. The indictment from January 6 is a component of a totalitarian programme that rejects the notion of political dissent and the importance of discussion in our system’s marketplace of ideas.
This indictment concerns a danger to the Bill of Rights as well as to a previous president.
Dissent becomes unlawful and freedom is killed if Jack Smith’s indictment from January 6 is upheld. Disagreement with leftists now results in arrests, court cases, and jail terms in addition to job loss and social media debates. The survival of America is at risk in this situation.
Bill Gates, a globalist millionaire and fan of reducing the world’s population, has told world leaders that it’s time to use “death panels” to put regular, law-abiding people to death for the crime of being useless to the elite.
As part of their Great Reset, Bill Gates and his colleagues at the World Economic Forum want to bring about a world like this, where people are cruel and kill each other. We can’t let their bad ways of thinking become the new standard.
Gates doesn’t say why we can’t pay teachers and let people have a peaceful life. Why can’t it be both? After all, we used to be able to pay teachers’ salaries and let our grandparents spend their senior years with their grandkids without any trouble.
If you want to know what else they have planned, you should look at what happened at the G20 in Bali, Indonesia, at the end of last year.
The G20 is a meeting of the leaders of the most important businesses in the world. They come from both “advanced” and “developing” countries.
Aside from the rooms where world leaders meet to talk about different problems, there are dozens of side events where “dignitaries” get together.
A Burisma accountant who blew the whistle on financial crimes by Biden has been found dead.
Why did people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab go to the G20? They didn’t get any votes.
People who ask this question are being called conspiracy theorists by the main stream media. But it is a perfectly fine question to ask.
Gates, for his part, is using the meeting to tell world leaders that “very, very high medical costs” will soon make it necessary to end the lives of sick and dying people through “death panels.”
The international elite’s concern with getting rid of people has everything to do with Gates’ death panels.
Bill Gates’s plans sound a lot like what the World Economic Forum says about suicide and what the Canadian government says is a wicked new way to deal with inflation, homelessness, rising crime rates, and food shortages: death panels for the useless.
The Trudeau government says they will now pay for euthanasia for people who are “too poor to continue living with dignity.”
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Canada is becoming more and more barbaric. The WEF has reached every part of the Canadian government. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his second-in-command Chrystia Freeland are WEF Young Global Leaders who have given Klaus Schwab and his vision for the future their whole hearts.
And don’t be confused: this plan includes getting rid of most of the world’s people. The technocrats in charge at the WEF are so excited about their plan to kill most of the world’s people that they can’t stop talking about it.
How do we know when to stop and say “enough”? How many times does the World Economic Forum have to say it wants to do bad things before the rest of the world pays attention?
Yuval Noah Harari is Klaus Schwab’s right-hand man. He has a habit of saying things that shouldn’t be said out loud, and last month he said what many people have thought for a long time.
Harari, who was pushing his new book, said that the big question for those in power in the 21st century is, “Why do we need so many people?”
Titanic Proved by a Bombshell Piece of Evidence The disaster with the submersible was a “inside job.”
And this isn’t the first time Yuval Noah Harari has said something about what they have planned for people. He recently said that the WEF thinks that the vast majority of people are useless and no longer needed.
Harari says that so-called “common people” are right to worry that they will become “redundant” in the future.
When Harari’s words are put together with those of other WEF advisors, like Bill Gates and his desire for “death panels,” it becomes clear that they are planning to kill a lot of people.
How much proof does a conspiracy idea need to turn into a conspiracy fact?
You can be sure that going after the infirm is part of a “stepping-stone” process where, a short while later, the people slated for death would be those over a 65 age; ; then it will be the “Caucasian males”; then those who hold beliefs that go against the government narrative, etc.
The defence minister was informed that the CV90 vehicle provided to Ukraine was deficient in spare components and could not withstand an RPG-7.
Source: The Russian Defence Ministry
The Swedish CV90 tracked armoured vehicle, which was taken by Russian forces during the conflict with Ukraine, has drawn criticism from the Russian military for its capabilities.
The disparaging remarks can be heard in a video that the Defence Ministry published on Friday in order to document Sergey Shoigu, the ministry’s director, visiting a command post associated with the Ukrainian operation. The visiting official saw the prize from Commander Andrey Mordvichev.
The Swedish-built vehicle, which has been in use since 1993, resembles a tank, according to Mordvichev. A “simple and cheap” RPG-7, a shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenade launcher that has been in use since the 1960s, however, was able to take out the one that was taken by the Russian soldiers.
The commander responded, “The vehicle was stopped with the tool of our grandfathers.”
Mordvichev informed the minister that although the donated armour was deficient in field repair equipment and replacement parts, it did carry an emergency stop kit.
The Russian Defence Ministry is the source.
According to the Russian military, the CV90’s primary armament has a very sluggish rate of fire due to its reloading system and is rather tall, making it a pretty simple target.
The vehicle that the Russian forces captured seems to be equipped with a Bofors 40/70 autocannon. It shoots 40mm bullets that are loaded into a magazine with a total capacity of 24 rounds and three distinct compartments for three different types of ammunition. The magazine is manually loaded.
Although Mordvichev acknowledged that the CV90 was equipped with a variety of cartridges, he claimed that the total number was small.
Swedish armour was taken by the Russians, according to reports from the end of July. This was the first time this specific weapon platform had been taken during the fighting in Ukraine. The commander said during the trip that its driver and gunner were deceased.
Dumping old and outdated military equipment in the war will give the governments of the West an excuse to update their arsenal. The industrial/military complex must be delighted in this.
Guess who our enemy is? Guess who the real terrorists are?
Continuing from the post I made yesterday about UFOs and the Occult, here is a video that goes into much more detail than what Pastor Jeff Durbin had on his video.
Here is a video that was just posted by Jeff Durbin of Apologia Studios. Only part of it is here. To see the rest, you have to go to his website and purchase a plan. Now Jeff is good at scripture and at witnessing. One of the tops. However, to my knowledge, he is not a flat earther. By knowing about the earth from a flat earth perspective, any Christian can cut right to the chase with people like Dr Steven Greer. I had posted an article several years ago about UFO and the occult, which is what Jeff gets into at the end of this video.
There are good Christians out there like the people from Apologia Studios, who do know certain sections of the Bible. That is the key, “certain sections.” But they are totally lacking in areas such as:
who the Bible was written to
who are the gentiles
who the covenants of the Bible was made to
who are the jews
God’s laws for the law of the land
and other topics that are not “politically correct” And the sad thing is, most of them will not look at the verses that are “controversial.” Maybe they don’t want to lose their two jewish supporters.
Here is the video:
The article that I posted several years ago is here. Click Here
You have flat earth critics and you have stupid critics. This is the case with Dr Lorraine Day. So, why even write about it? My thought is, that the critics that are sincere, would not even make such outlandish statements as Day does. When they hear this, they should cringe and, maybe, just maybe, continue to do research with an open mind.
Again, I write about Day as she put out a longer video where she makes claims that we, flat earthers, are wrong. If you come across arguments such as this (you’ll see below), you’ll know how to handle them. Let’s hope that you don’t come across such crazy statements as you’ll see below.
Now, you might say, there are all kinds of crazies out there, so why spend you time? Normally, I wouldn’t even waste my time answering such statements/questions but seeing that Lorraine Day is right on certain issues, such as natural healing and knowing about government and media lies, she does attach a following of Truth Seekers. However, she is misleading them on the important truth of the flat stationary earth.
Here is the video. Below this, I’ll add my comments. You probably have your comments, too. With that in mind, let’s begin.
Day starts off by saying “I probably have read the bible as much as anybody who is on earth right now.”
No flat earth believer says that the Bible says it’s flat, but it’s alluring to it.
Firmament. She admits that the waters were divided by the firmament and that the earth is in-between. She said the Bible says nothing that the firmament was a glass dome. Well, the word “dome” is not in the Bible but the firmament is, and the Bible DOES SAY that it is made with molten glass. It would help if she read the King James Bible! Admitting that the water is divided, there has to be a solid object to do it. Now, she does not deny that there is a firmament but denies that it is glass of some sort. Well, if it’s not glass it would be of another material. So, what colour is that material? Or, is it made of clear plastic? Now, this is where she trips herself up and she probably doesn’t realise it but we do!
Later in the video she says that we did not go to outer space because of the Van Allen Belt. OK, fine, I’ll go along with that. But admitting that the waters were divided by the waters, that means that there has to be something solid to do that to keep the water above from the water beneath, right? Water is very heavy and you need something super strong to do that. And this solid firmament can not have even one hole in it and it would have to come down and touch the earth to keep the water out. It would have to have a complete seal all the way around on the earth. Now, with that in mind, how can anything get past our atmosphere even if there was no Van Allen Belt? You can’t, but she can’t seem to understand basic physics that a child would know.
Here is the orthodox explanation of the Van Allen Belt:
The Van Allen belts are not a layer surrounding the whole Earth. They are two donut-shaped regions of high-energy particles that are trapped by Earth’s magnetic field. The inner belt extends from about 1,000 to 12,000 kilometers (620 to 7,500 miles) above Earth, while the outer belt extends from about 9,200 to 15,600 kilometers (15,000 to 25,000 miles) above Earth. The belts are not uniform in width, and they can vary in size depending on the strength of Earth’s magnetic field and the activity of the sun.
Here we see that, according to NASA, you can fly around the Van Allen Belt. But regardless, IF there is a Belt, that is so far out that it would be in “the vacuum of space,” which goes back to how do you keep two atmospheres separate without a physical barrier.
She said there is nothing in the Bible that says that it’s round and it comes all the way down to the earth’s surface. While this is true, is it necessary that God write that? He knows that His people have common sense. (I don’t know about now.) And who is sinful man, who is Lorraine Day, to tell what God should or should not write in the Bible? Day is cardinal in her thinking like the rest of us. This is a case where a person uses their standard of what should and should not be!
Then she says that the Bible says that the Sun and Moon is in the firmament. How can this be if it’s solid she asks? Has she ever thought that there are things, materials that we don’t know about and, Day, using her finite and limited knowledge compared to what God knows, who is infinite! There are things that we have to take on faith but perhaps this is too much for her. In her other writings she does say we need faith but, like all critics, she uses certain words when it proves her point and dismisses it when it suits her. This is the weakness of the human race.
Where did she find someone that says that the stars, Sun and Moon is in the solid firmament. We believe that the Sun and Moon, is under it, that the stars are above the firmament, in the watery expanse.
She says, there is the sky and there are many levels up to Heaven where God’s thrown is. Has she thought about what she just said? I guess not! Heaven is above, which the Bible says and she does agree on this. However, the fact that Heaven is above, there needs to be an up and down and the same up and down for the whole world. If Heaven is above for the UK, it would be below for South Africa, and vice versa. In space there is no up down, north and south.
She says that this is symbolic language. If that is the case, she would have to say that Heaven and God’s thrown is, too.
She quotes Ezekiel where the firmament spoken of, and says this symbolic, as she asks the question, “Where is its brain?” Say that it is literal, and God says it is, that does not mean we would know where its brain is, how it speaks. We know that God created the heaven and earth in 6 days but we don’t know how. We are not given the steps on how to create something from nothing. This is what you call faith!
The natural man can not understand the spiritual things of God, is what Lorraine said. Well, why doesn’t she apply this to herself when she talked about the firmament?
The earth is on pillars. She seems to spiritualise everything that does not fit her understanding of the Bible. When you do that, you can twist the Bible to say anything you want; you can use it to come to the same conclusions as the Jehovah’s Wittiness does, and we know that they are wrong. So, enough with this “bait and switch” tactics!
She uses the word “pillar” then looks at other verses where it says that, such as when God appeared to the Israelites as a pillar of fire – that this is not literally a solid pillar. One has to have basic English knowledge to know that we use the same identical word as figurative and another as literal, and what determines that is in CONTEXT.
Day does not understand idioms in the English language. An idiom is an expression that has a figurative meaning that is different from the literal meaning of the words that make it up. For example, the idiom “kick the bucket” means to die, even though the literal meaning of the words “kick” and “bucket” does not have anything to do with death.
She should know that!
She goes on to say the foundation of the earth, is Jesus out there pouring concrete? Do you see how cardinal her thinking is? Does she actually think that the earth is constructed as we construct things? I guess she does! Even another flat earth critic would cringe to use this in a discussion.
She says there are no actual pillars that are holding things up. Really? How can she have the audacity to say that? Does she have the ability to search the ground deep under earth? Can she go where angels go? Can she go where angels can’t go? Is she given some special revelation from God that no one else has?
She talks how can there be an East, West, North and South in the world. She goes on to say there may be East, West, North and South in a country but not in the world. And she holds up an artist’s rendition of the earth.
Well, here is how there can be an East, West, North and South in the world Lorraine. North is the North pole, anything pointing away from that is South. As for East and West, this direction is set by the relation of the Sun. With the Sun setting where it does, we call West, and if you keep going in that direction, you cross the International Date Line and you are still going West. But going in the opposite direction, we call East. Is this “rocket science” for Lorraine? I guess so. In short, there is no problem. How is it that she has no problem with N, S, E, W, on a globe earth but on a flat earth, there’s a problem? Daaa!
She admits that this would be no problem for points of a compass in a country but thinks it doesn’t work outside of a country on a flat earth model. What about saying that Poland it east of German, and France is west of Germany? Simple!
The directions work the same on a globe as it does on a flat earth. You go in a circle with using the North Pole as a reference.
Then Lorraine talks about the Sun rise and Sun sets. How does it do it on a flat earth? The Bible says that many, many times. Well, she should know that this is a figure of speech, we all know what it means and flat earthers have no problem using those words. “Set” is opposite of “rise”, and, indeed, the Sun rises. At first, we see it on the horizon, but as the day goes on, it gets higher and high where we have to look up to see the Sun. Then, the opposite happens as it heads to the West. Both applies on a flat earth as well as a globe earth.
She says that this is not enough information for me to believe in a flat earth. Well, it’s plane to see that there is a lot of other information that she hasn’t looked at. Maybe because if she did, or admits she did, she would have to change her views.
She quotes, “it hastens (Sun) to the place where it arose.” Well, it does this on a flat earth, as it circles back to the beginning. In the heliocentric model, the Sun goes straight but with the earth spinning on its axis while at the same time doing a cork screw around the Sun, it can give that impression. But on a flat earth model it does, too. So, what the Sun does is in complete agreement with the Bible.
She says that the flat earth believes, the Sun doesn’t rise and sets it’s just further away. Well, it IS further away but when we speak, we use the words, “rises” and “sets”.
When Lorraine talks about the eclipse, when the Moon gets in the way of the Sun and earth and she says that the flat earth believers say that it’s another planet. She must have got that from the Flat Earth Society which is set up by Masons, as real flat earthers don’t believe in planets but that there is some object that gets in the way. She says that’s not scientific. What nonsense! So, if you don’t know something that means that you are not scientific? NO, that means that we are honest enough that we admit that we don’t know. Which, as Christians were not to tell lies.
The history of science as we discover things, as we prove things, there are things that we don’t know. So, what we don’t know, if you are honest, you say you don’t know. You can give your theory and it remains a theory until it’s proven true or false. We don’t believe in a flat earth theory but in the flat earth facts.
She then goes on to quote what we say that the waters are held in by 150-foot ice walls of the Antarctica and then quotes a verse in Jeremiah that God says he holds the water in by the sand. No problem there. When talking to a man (Jeremiah) who never left the Middle East, it is the sand that holds the sea in. Actually it’s anything above the water level. There are also areas, including one that is not too far from Israel, where it’s rocks that hold the water in and that is the country of Malta, which is in the Mediterranean Sea. So, does that mean that God lied? Of course not, but it’s true that it’s sand that you see on most shore lines.
I’ve been to Turkey, which is closer to Israel, and it was not sand but rocks and caves at the shore edge. There are boat excursions you can take to see them, jump off the boat and swim in the cave, which I did. We know what God means, but here, Lorraine changes gears to suit her agenda.
There is ice instead of sand at the Antarctica but does that mean that sand couldn’t do it, too? Of course it can. What keeps the sea in is a simple principle of physics and that is, “water seeks its own level.” So anything, and I mean anything, that is higher than sea level, the water will not go higher.
Lorraine doesn’t seem to know her geography, as she says that every coast has sand; that it’s sand that hold the water in. Well, as shown above, there are areas that are not sand but the water is held in. When she said that all coasts have sand, maybe she doesn’t believe in the photos of the Antarctica that there are 150-foot ice walls! Did flat earthers make that up, too?
Now, we know that God uses figures of speech, too. When he said that sand holds it in. He knows that we know it’s a figure of speech because we all know that there is sand UNDER the water and that doesn’t hold the water in. The sand has to be above the water level. But the fact that most of the coasts of the word there is sand at ocean’s edge, it’s very appropriate to use the word sand as God said.
About the 20-minute mark Lorraine talks about there was no ice wall before the flood, using as her bases that God created the world to be inhabited – meaning that you can’t inhabit the Antarctic. Weather you believe that the earth was warm world-wide or whether we had the weather conditions as we do today, God did not mean that TOTALLY the whole earth would be inhabited. It’s a figure of speech. He was talking to people who had intelligence not like we hear today. Think about it. Pre-Flood times or after there was oceans. People did not live on the oceans. People did not live on lakes, steep mountains and deserts. So, with weather contentions like we have today, people would also not live on continents or land masses of ice as there would be no food.
Lorraine gives another argument that doesn’t hold water (pun intended)! She goes on to ask why would God use ice to contain the waters in the Antarctic rather than sand. Lorraine uses the typical reasoning that millions use, meaning using the finite mind of man than of God Almighty. In other words, if we can’t figure it out that means that God did not do it. As we read in the Bible
Isiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
There is a reason why Yahweh made things the way He did and who are we to question it? How can we even understand it? And even IF we could, there is a reason why he chose the words He did and the number of words to write what we call the Holy Bible. If God was to explain everything, all the libraries in the world would not be able to contain it. Which means, it would be totally impractical for anyone to read the Bible if they wanted to.
She goes on to say that she is not talking about if the earth is spinning, that she doesn’t know if it’s spinning or not, that she is talking about the earth being flat or not. Well, if a person doesn’t know if it’s spinning or not, has a serious problem. But let me be nice about it, as this is the Christian way.
Talking about spinning is part of the argument for a flat stationary earth. The word “stationary” is often used by flat earthers. When you get a person to question one aspect, it starts to make them think of what else they’ve been lied to.
Apparently, if Lorraine thinks that the earth is stationary, admit it but she would also have to admit that the Sun and Moon are moving around the earth – which is what we believe to be. If she still believes that the Sun is the centre, she’d have to admit that the earth is moving. And she would have twist scripture to say that earth is not the centre of God’s creation but the Sun, and by extension if she believes the rest that we are told, that the Big Bang is the centre of the Universe.
Then, Lorraine goes into quoting verses that we used, many in the book of Psalms, that the earth shall not be moved, that it’s fixed, not moveable. Then she switches over to talking about David in the book of Psalms that David shall not be moved. Here, she uses the same word, “move”, applies to something else and says see, the earth moves just like David moved (e.g., walking, etc.). How ludicrous! Sure, it’s the same word but it’s used in an entirely DIFFERENT CONTEXT! A child would understand this and a child would understand when God talked about the earth shall not be moved, that it was in a literal sense. But she can’t understand that.
There are many words that are in English, and probably in all languages of the world, where one word is used in a different context. Again, a child would know this. It would be like a farmer saying, “My cow died on me.” That does not mean that it actually fell on the farmer and died on him. You can say, “I would like a drink of water. Then, I’m going to water the plants.” We all know that this is two different meanings of the word “water,” and a child understands that. The first “water” is used a noun, and the second as a verb, but it’s the same spelling. So, there are different meanings to the same word and there is a figure of speech that the word can be put in.
She goes on to quote what Hebrew word it is and saying that it’s exactly the same in the verses she quoted. Of course, it’s the same word, but the Strong’s Concordance does not tell it’s used in a different context. Just like the word “water” used above, it’s the exact word. The same would apply with the word “moved”, so it would have the same word. Strong’s defines the original meaning of the word in ancient Hebrew or Greek but NOT the meaning when it appears in all the various verses of the Bible.
Lorraine goes on to explain that when the earth shall not be moved it shall be under His control – not that it shall remain in place. Well, the context does not mean that at all. God plainly talks about the physical aspects of the earth.
Our Creator, Yahweh, gave us senses such as: sight, sound, touch, smell, taste. So, what she is saying that we can’t trust our God-given senses; senses that are there to protect us and to tell us about the world around us. If we can’t trust our senses, people would not trust in God. The senses that I’m talking about, the sense of feeling. Tell me, Lorraine Day, how is it that we are spinning 1,000 miles an hour in one direction and moving 66,600 mph in another direction (going around the Sun) and not feel it?!
She said that we got to be thinking in spiritual terms and not physical terms. Well, this is the problem with most Christians today – they think all in spiritual terms, not realising that there are physical terms, as well. Here’s a fact that Day has not thought of and that is, the Bible is 71% civil (meaning physical) and 29% spiritual. When God talked about the earth shall not be moved, it’s very plain that it’s physical.
By saying that I don’t know if the earth is spinning or not, you should be able to determine that by your God-given senses.
Does Lorraine really expect to convince someone? Only if they stop their thinking and let her do it all for them. This is what the government/educational/media would like you to do – just sit back, don’t think and they’ll do it all for you.
By the way, if you watch this video on Bitchute and you are a subscriber, you can vote on this. It doesn’t cost anything to sign up but you have to sign up in order to vote and make comments. Unfortunately, she disabled the Comments section (assuming she allowed it in the beginning). I guess this was done so as the viewers could see the real comments by flat earthers. With that in mind, you can leave your comments on this blog. Notice, I did not tell you how to vote, you vote, Like or Dislike, according to your belief.
What’s on the other side of earth, Day brings up. This is about 24:30 into the video. Lorraine holds up a picture of the flat earth and says, what’s on the other side of the earth. “That’s wasted space. God doesn’t waste things; matter is always conserved.” Then she uses as a comparison when Jesus fed the 5,000 with bread and fish, He had the disciples pick up the remaining fish and bread, and said that God doesn’t waste anything. Good point Lorraine. I’ll get back to that in a minute.
She does on to say, “Why would He (God) waste the underside of the earth? What is there? It’s wasted space. The most efficient use of space would be a globe. I’m not saying that the earth is a globe, I’m only suggesting that. With all the millions of miles under the earth; the wasted space.”
I couldn’t believe anyone could say that! How stupid. Just think for yourself. Don’t believe her, don’t believe me, think for yourself!
First, the comparison is not good – talking about the shape of the earth and feeding of the 5,000 people and left over food.
Say you are building a 2,000 sq. ft. house. You don’t want to waste space and you don’t want to waste money. So, the foundation is built and all that goes on top of it. Finally, you have the roof. Would you say to the builder that he wasted space because there is a foundation; why he didn’t build under the house? What about the roof, you can’t live on the roof! Of course not! That is stupid. There is an underside to homes and buildings by its very nature. That does not mean you wasted space. You need something for the home to rest on. It’s a given that you can’t live under the home. If you did, in reality, you are living on a level of flood that is below ground level. But what about under the lowest ground level? And what about the roof. You are not wasting space or money by having a roof. A roof is part of a home. If you don’t have it, it won’t be long before you lose the whole house.
That does not mean that God “wasted” space. Just like a house, you have to build things in a certain way for its construction and the same goes for earth.
Us flat earth believers admit that we don’t know what is under the earth. No one does. Lorraine seems to think that flat earthers need to provide an answer for everything to be satisfied. There are many things that man doesn’t know, such as in any field of science, and we admit it. That doesn’t mean that because they don’t have the answer for everything, they are wrong on what they do know.
By Lorraine comes from the medical profession and they do make up things that they don’t understand; they give it names and if that doesn’t work, they say it’s all in your head. They actually say that to those who suffered serious side effects with the jab. But normally, in a field of science that is not corrupt like the medical profession, things are not made up if they don’t know.
Back to the underside of the earth. Because you can’t live on the other side of a flat earth does not mean that the space is “wasted”. It is necessary. This is part of the construction of earth; you need a foundation to rest on. Just like a home, you need a foundation, which means solid ground underneath – it’s a given, it goes without saying. Daaa!
“The most efficient use would be a globe.” Really?! If you were to build a stage, would you have it flat with an edge where you could fall off, or would you have it a ball? A 5-year-old child can give you the answer. How, do you expect people to stay on a ball stage? Even if you were not on the bottom, but on the side, you would fall off. If you were near the top, you could still fall off (depending on the diameter). In the world of reality, a ball would be the most wasted thing to build.
Then, if you listen carefully, Day actually said, “I’m not saying that the earth is a globe, I’m only suggesting that.” Well, what are you saying? Be clear! It’s either flat or a ball, or do you have some weird shape in mind? Then, what is it?
Now, with all that Lorraine said about God not wasting space. If she really believes that, what about all the billions of planets and suns in the universe? Is that not wasted space to the N th degree? It certainly is. What about just the planets in our solar system? Isn’t that wasted space? Why doesn’t she comment on that? Or, is she not sure of other planets and suns? She doesn’t’ mention one way or the other on this subject. If she continued and said that she believes in other planets, she would get herself into a corner and not be able to get out of with without lying.
Believing as the government and educational system wants us to believe – in a universe with billions of planets and stars – is wasted space. So, Lorraine must believe in billions of planets and suns, as she does not believe in the flat stationary earth.
Next, Lorraine mentions about the Van Allen Radiation Belt that it’s so hot that this is what keeps us from going into outer space. So, she does, by implication, believes in outer space. She admits that we have not been in space because of that. With that being true, what about satellites. She would have to admit that they don’t exist.
Being that she believes there is outer space because we can’t get to it, she does not address how a vacuum of space can exist next to our atmosphere without a solid barrier. She either didn’t think that far ahead or doesn’t want to try to explain how a barrier of some sort does not need to exist.
Setting up a “strawman.” Here, Lorraine, talks about a guy whose name is Tyler Doka and that he believes in a flat earth. But he also believes that he is the Son of God; that this is blasphemous. Well, it is blasphemous. Then, she goes on to say you better look at your scripture. This is a typical “strawman” argument.
No flat earther (expect those on the Masonic site of the Flat Earth Society) says that. Day is, by implication, associating those who believe in a flat stationary earth, would believe and follow what this Doka character says. We never heard of him.
Why does Lorraine say is, if you get your information from Doka you better read your Bible. I’ve been in the flat earth movement since early 2015, and I never came across his site. But have come across sites who don’t make blasphemous statements like him; I have come across flat earth sites and videos by Christians like Rob Skiba. I’m sure that Day had come across his site or videos long before Doka, as Skiba is much easier to find in the search engines or on social media platforms. So, why not use him as an example? The reason is simple – that Rob Skiba would not be a good example of a “strawman”. I’m sure that this site that you are on, ChristianFlatEarthMinistry.org, comes up in the search engine before Doka, so why didn’t Lorraine use this site? This site contains not only flat earth information abut also good Bible studies on other topics. Well, the reason is the same as already mentioned.
She said, “There is nothing in the Bible that says the earth is flat.” True, you won’t see the word “flat,” but you don’t have to. There is enough said, along with using common sense, that you know that the world is not a globe. Show me just one home, just one out of the millions were it’s made into a globe? You won’t find any because you can’t live on something round – even if it’s 8,000 mile in diameter.
There is a lot of things that the Bible does not say, that we don’t go to for knowledge and that is OK; that is the way it should be. Some examples would be: how to put a roof on your house, how to bake a cake, how tune up your car, they are not in the Bible but we can use sources to find out how to do that. And, there are about a million other topics.
Why? Because the Bible is NOT a “how to book” on all topics; it’s not a book on simple information on other topics. It’s a book about His people, called Israelites and at a certain period of history and certain locations. That is it. It’s not a library of the whole world of discoveries, histories and other topics.
About the earth, we can look at the nature of earth by our five senses, by our experience, by reality itself. Will Day discuss the nature of earth on a secular basis? No! Because when you do, you’ll discover, among other things, that:
the ground is not moving
that no matter how high you go
the horizon is flat
that water seeks its own level
that you can’t have two different atmospheres next to each other without a solid and very strong barrier
That’s simple physics.
Lorraine claims that flat earthers do not believe that the earth is round because NASA lies about a lot.
We, flat earthers are not reaction based. The reason why we believe the way we do is because of a host of evidence, BOTH from the Bible and our common sense and experience of reality. She goes on to say, “That you just don’t believe in the opposite of what the government says without any evidence.” The fact is, we DO have evidence which she refuses to look at! And that flat earthers don’t believe in a flat earth because it’s opposite of what the government says. She is putting words in our mouths – which is deceitful.
No flat earther (expect government shills) know that the Bible does not use the actual words “flat earth.” It does use other words that are contrary to what we are told in schools. But if you notice Day does not use one example of what we know about physics, to tell us that we have been lied to. And, there are plenty of flat earth videos that talk about this. They include:
Water seeks its own level
Law of density
Perspective, the nature of how our eyes see things
The ground is not moving
You can go around in a circle on a flat stationary earth
That you have Polaris, a star that does not move
Etc., etc.
In short, Lorraine Day did a butcher job on attacking flat earth believers, including her twisting scripture. I’ve heard better arguments from other critics of the flat earth that was better than hers. In fact, some of them would be embarrassed to use her arguments!
What Day hoped to accomplish she failed in. For those who new to the flat earth, are probably more convinced that the earth is, indeed, flat and stationary, with no outer space and other spinning planets after hearing such arguments that is suppose to support a globe earth.
Let me know what your thoughts are. Of course, there will be government shills adding comments so, keep that in mind.
What are some of the things that are politically correct? They are: We should obey Caesar rather than God. Immigration is good. Allowing all kinds of non-Christian religions in the country. That everyone is equal in ability. That race-mixing is good. That free sex with anyone or anything is good. That abortion is OK. And it goes on and on. As Pastor Weaver explained, that anytime a government tells you what is right or wrong, it’s a form of religion. Well, the fact is, and what I have been saying for a long time is, that what the government wants you to say, believe and obey to what is contrary to Christianity.
In short, the government will fine you or put you in prison if say to someone who is about to have an abortion that it’s wrong. In short, the government is forcing their religion on you and making Christianity illegal. That is, unless your Christianity is so water downed that it offends no one.
If you are “politically correct,” you don’t know your Bible. You don’t even have a right to call yourself a Christian.
It has been 54 years ago today (20 July) that the first fake Moon landing was announced to the world. Of course, the world was told at the time it was real. Of course, this was all part of faking the globe spinning Earth.
See the video talked about here:
Dr Lorraine Day, who is a medical doctor talks about the flat earth. There are many critics of the flat earth so why talk about this Lorraine Day, you may ask? The reason why is that she does talk about other conspiracies and talks about the people and ethnic group behind most of our problems. Dr Day also is spot on when it comes to health and how to get well and stay well naturally. She also exposes the lies of World War II. For all these reasons she is called the labels that we are, such as: conspiracy theorists, extremists, bigots, etc.
This is a case, where I’ve mentioned before, “not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” So, Lorraine does have good information.
What I have found wrong with what she writes are on certain topics when she talks about the Bible. For example, she thinks that Christians should be pacifists and let God do all our fighting. She uses, as an example that if you are attacked, you should run away. LOL! How utterly crazy is that? Think about it.
If you are old, how can you run away? If you are a young athlete, you still can’t outrun a bullet. I point this out to show the other side of Lorraine Day. Being a Bible student, which she claims she is, she is without excuse to say that Christians should be pacifists.
Now, on to the flat earth. Today I found a video that she posted where she slams the flat earth believers.
Here is what she said basically. “The evidence I’ve seen videos, I really can’t understand it even though I have several advanced degrees. So, I don’t know what they are talking about. So, here is the answer. If the earth was flat, we would not have a 24-hour days. You would never see the Sun go down. It would never go down; it comes up in the East and sets in the West. So, it would continue to go west indefinitely. It would get smaller and smaller and smaller until you couldn’t see it any more. If we lived on a flat earth and it goes all they way to the east, how would it come up again? Does it go around this apparently flat English muffin of a world? What’s on the bottom? How is it that you can sail all the way around the world and come back to where you started?”
“How does it (Sun) get back so it can come up in the East? It would have to go from West to East in some nations and it never does.
“I would like to hear some comments.”
Here are my comments. I’ll take it one sentence at a time.
Lorraine: The evidence I’ve seen videos, I really can’t understand it even though I have several advanced degrees
Craig: First, I doubt she saw some videos and if she did, she saw ones that did not talk about how is it possible to have a 24-hour day on a flat earth. As you know, there are many topics to talk about. So, she picks one she hasn’t seen to talk about.
I really have to laugh when she said she “has several advanced degrees.” The degrees that she does have is in medicine, which includes biology. So, what does that have to do with the flat earth? What does that have to do with perspective? With water seeking its own level? With the physics that you need a solid closed container if two different atmospheres are to exist side-by-side?
This is where a saying that I created applies: “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. But if you are, you will not be able to understand it.” Which means, if you got so much “education” you’d be completely brainwashed. But if you did not go through this brainwashing in universities, you will be able to understand it.
The ironic thing with Day is, that much of what she learned, she found out most of it a lie and she admits it! And she learned this from how to heal yourself naturally and from her recovery from stage-4 cancer that she had about 30 years ago. She admits that most of medicine and the nature of disease is a lie.
Lorraine: So, here is the answer. If the earth was flat we would not have a 24-hour days.
Craig: Isn’t that amazing, she gives her answer to the flat earth facts that we would not have a 24-hour day. The whole video she made is less than 5 minutes long and all she talks about is how can 24-days be created? Yet, we know that there are many, many things to be discussed to answer the many questions people have on the flat earth.
Lorraine: You would never see the Sun go down.
Craig: You see the Sun go down by the simple fact that it goes out of sight. Now Day is supposed to know how the human eye functions if she studied biology, which is part of getting a medical degree. So, she knows that the eyes can not see the smallest objects; that is why we use microscopes.
Lorraine: It comes up in the East and sets in the West. So, it would continue to go west indefinitely
Craig: What flat earth believer says that the Sun keeps travelling West? This implies that it goes off in space somewhere. She made this up herself and did not get it from a flat earther! Then, she contradicts herself, as in the next sentence she said (referring to the above) that it would get smaller and smaller. So, she admits that the human eye can only see so much. But earlier she said “You would never see the Sun go down.” Daa.
Lorraine: If we lived on a flat earth and it goes all the way to the East, how would it come up again?
Craig: Simple. The Sun goes in a circle (elliptical circle, of course). What’s so difficult to know about this? You don’t need an “advanced degree” to know this.
Lorraine: Does it go around this apparently flat English muffin of a world? What’s on the bottom?
Craig: At this point, Lorraine can’t conceive that the Sun goes around on a flat surface. Just like you can go around your block. You don’t live on a ball, but you can go in one direction and end up where you started from.
Lorraine: How is it that you can sail all the way around the world and come back to where you started?”
Craig: This is simple, as I explained previously. Remember about “a rocket scientist” that I mentioned before.
Lorraine: “How does it (Sun) get back so it can come up in the East? It (Sun) would have to go from West to East in some nations and it never does.
Craig: How does Lorraine figure that when the Sun travels in a circle on a flat earth that some nations would have the Sun rising in the West?!
All one has to do is, take a flat board, have a torch (flashlight), hold it fairly close to the board, move it around a clock-wise direction and see that it just lights part of the board. Now, you can’t do this while you are standing up and have a one-foot square board and say, “See, the Sun lights the whole world at the same time.” No, the Sun is not 93 million miles from earth but within the dome; that God created the Sun size and distance so as the result is what we have today – that just a certain part of the earth is lighted as it makes its circular motion across the earth.
Since Lorraine is really into the study of the Bible, she either never saw or ignored the articles/videos that discusses the nature of earth in the Bible. All she has to do is go to a better such engine such as: Yandex.com and search “Christian flat earth” and check out what she sees there.
Lorraine: “I would like to hear some comments.”
Craig: Well, the thing is that her comments are turned off. That’s real convenient! Perhaps done on purpose so she doesn’t have to respond! Lol.
On the video there are 39 Likes and 25 Dislikes. This is a high Dislike ratio, so there are many that disagree with Day.
Christian Flat Earth Ministry 
The Top Arguments When Talking to Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics
Topics When Discussing with Atheists