0 0 votes
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John le Bon
6 years ago

I find it genuinely embarrassing to think that people take characters like Santos Bonacci seriously. Here is an excerpt from the comment I left underneath that video on Patricia’s channel:

1) 54:40 Santos claimed that the sun is spinning around the galaxy at ‘550 million mph’, not once, but several times. This is more than 1,000 times greater than what the SBEM believers actually claim. Their story is that the sun is rotating around the centre of the galaxy at 450 thousand mph. Still a ridiculous claim (in my opinion), but only a fraction of what Santos is saying their model entails.

2) 26:02 Santos claims that timelapse photos of the night sky are his second major proof we do not live on a spinning ball. He claims that on the SBEM the stars should ‘fly off on a 35 degree tangent’ (or something like this). He does not explain why. In fact, the SBEM has been reverse-engineered in such a way that what we see in the night sky (regarding timelapse photography) accords with their story. Ergo, Santos is wrong.

3) 56:10 Santos asks how it is possible on the SBEM that Polaris is still in the same place, even though the earth has supposedly traveled over 180 million miles in that time. On the SBEM this is easily accounted for, because they claim Polaris is over 400 ‘lightyears’ away, so there would be no perceivable parallax (given the small angle involved). Of course, the concept of ‘lightyear’s itself is ludicrous, and the scientismists have no physical proof for their claims, but the point is that on THEIR MODEL – which is what Santos is supposed to be debunking – their maths checks out. If you are going to debunk their model, you have to represent it fairly, and in this case (as with the others) Santos simply is not doing that. It is like a ball earther ‘debunking’ a strawman flat earth model. It is lazy research at best and dishonest at worst.

4) 47:00 Santos claims that we have many images of the sun and moon above the skyline during an eclipse. Can he provide any evidence of this?

5) 47:18 Santos claims that the moon ‘retrogrades’ for eclipses. I have not heard this before, so it may be true that the SBEM claims this. Can Santos point out an official SBEM propagator who claims the moon retrogrades for eclipses? This is not a criticism but a genuine question, because if this is indeed part of the official SBEM, then I would completely agree that it is ludicrous and a legitimate proof against SBEM.

Carole Thomas
Carole Thomas
6 years ago

Hi Jon
I agree with your criticisms of the arguments Santos used in his attempt to debunk Ball Earth. I also did not like his abrasive comments regarding the intelligence (or lack of) of people who fail to grasp the ( perceived) weaknesses of the SBEM.
Having listened to many of Santos’ presentations on syncretism as it applies to astrology and science, I must say that his appearance on Patricia Steere’s show was not one of his stellar performances. Santos does have a lot of interesting things to say but he tends to jump around a lot and make a lot of intuitive rather than logical connections especially regarding etymology.
I don’t think Santos has done his homework regarding the SBEM/FE models on a scientific level but he does have a lot to offer regarding comparative religious models. I especially liked his recent Flat Earth presentation with another host in which he stuck to his strong points.

Tal Shiar
Tal Shiar
6 years ago
Reply to  Carole Thomas

When will people join the rest of us fakeologist’s back here on Earth?

There seems to be a lot of things going on down here. It would be nice to start discussing them again. While I’ve enjoyed Santos video’s in the past, he clearly is suffering from some mental illness. IMHO

I recently flew very close to the north pole! Because planes fly in an “arch” direction. I’ve heard its because planet is a globe. Just saying . . . Thought you might enjoy! Have a nice weekend! 🙂

Tal Shiar
Tal Shiar
6 years ago
Reply to  ab

Sorry AB, I don’t mean to upset you, but there is no Santa! 😉

I visited Paris and Italy. Spent some time in Turin, Milan, Venice, Florence, Rome, Naples, and Pompeii.

To be honest, I feel like you can see that they is an arc even in the pictures.

Either way, I am move interested in the numerology in the USA media going on right now. There seems to be some strong similarities in what was going on in the 1930’s to what is going on right now. I guess I have been researching some stuff and noticing the numerology going on then and now. Not sure if you have followed the Stock Markets, but they are in full retreat to possible 2009 levels. We shall see.

How was your holiday and New Years? I feel asleep by 7pm. ha ha . . LAME I know! 🙂

6 years ago

The “flat or spherical” conversation can go on, and slowly word can spread, until suddenly people around the world start doing the Two-Elevation Comparison (TEC) for themselves. Then the debate will end, and humanity will be better for the experience.

The TEC is quick and easy to perform, for those in a suitable geographic area. All you do is take 2 photographs at (nearly) the same longitude, latitude and time, but at different elevations (100 ft, or 10 stories, of difference should work, though possibly much less distance is enough – this detail will be clarified early on, through experience). These 2 photos are taken close to the shore of a body of water, looking toward the horizon formed by the water, in the direction of objects just beyond that horizon (according to the spherical Earth model) for an observer at the lower elevation.

On a flat surface, no new objects will be visible at the higher elevation compared to the lower elevation. On a spherical surface, some objects beyond the horizon at the lower elevation will be visible at the higher elevation. While there are of course other variables than geometry involved – and these variables do complicate the situation somewhat – the plainly visible difference between expected flat Earth results and expected spherical Earth results will speak for itself to most people.

A large percentage of Earth’s population lives in locations where this TEC observation is possible. So the early trickle of such observations will soon become a torrent of confirmations, if the “flat or spherical” question ever goes mainstream.