Two Comments on Watching Trey Smith's Jurassic

The video

Jurassic (HD) 2015 -- OFFICIAL dinosaur TRUTH documentary. The REAL Jurassic WORLD.
Trey Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo

It's a trailer for a longer DVD.

My comment one:

St George is one of my patron saints.*

No, he did NOT become a saint by killing a dragon. He was a saint, a man living the life of the Holy Trinity in his soul, before he killed the dragon. And he became canonised as a saint, by being killed for his Christian faith.

23 Aprilis. Natalis Sancti Georgii Martyris [heavenly birthday of St George, Martyr] cujus illustre martyrium [of which the illustrious martyrdom] inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur [the Church of God venerates among the crowns of Martyrs].

His main business was not killing that dragon. His main business was remaining faithful to God while his former fellow Roman Soldiers were training "interrogation and intimidation techniques" of very advanced types in order to see if he would save his life by apostasising and becoming legal again. He didn't. THAT is why 23 April is a feast, and killing the dragon was child's play compared with that.

* Hans = Iohannes = John, either St John the Baptist or St John the Disciple whom Jesus Loved
Georg = see above
Mikael = another dragon defeater. Who beat a bigger and older dragon, of non reptilian origin.
Elitzur probably means I have some OT patrons in Heaven as well.

Occasioned by blunder:

"It is by killing the dragon that he became a saint."

No, Beowulf killed both a giant or troll and its mother AND much later a dragon, but he enjoys no cult of sainthood, since he is presumed to have died a Pagan. But main thing, as above, sainthood is about more than killing dragons.

The occasion for my next comment, at 30:36, was Trey Smith mentioning how some scientists work for very little income.

My comment two:

30:36 Some of them do it for very little income.

I am not a scientist, but I am a science critic.

Take a look at this: http://ppt.li/332

Some of it is science criticism, some has to do with other aspects of Iserbyt's book, especially since homeschooling is worse off in Europe than in US, some is other Christian stuff. I am Catholic. That might not sit well with your pastor.

If he has any objections to that, I refer him to this blog:

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com

But even if objections remain, there will be things on my blog which he MIGHT like, or which you might like even if he doesn't.

[Should have said blogS, in the plural, btw!]

In France I am targetted, in certain ways.

Some say that my blogs are infringing on "la laïcité" - the separation of Church and state. Unlike 1 or 2 amendment, the French law of 1905, in a state no longer quite in existence (that was III Republic, now is V Republic) really was about divorcing the state from the Church, and also pillaging. Obviously heirs of that attitude will pretend my blogs are illegal or immoral and they are doing me a favour by hindering publishing.

Some say I am a kind of new St Francis. I am not, I never claimed to be, I never vowed poverty for life in that sense, I would not commit sacrilege against such a state of life (since I am not in it), nor against prophecy, since I am not pretending to be a prophet, just a writer, by taking an income, if offered according to my conditions.

Some say I am ungrateful to Muslims. Always attacking them (yes, I actually dated my post from 22 october "Sts Nunilon and Alodia, Virgin Martyrs of Huesca, 22-X-2015", and the régime in Huesca back then was a Muslim one!), despite them always giving me alms, including sweets that I like so much ... I actually have lost quite a few teeth since this generosity on their side and this ungratitude on my side started. But 22-X IS Sts Nunilon and Alodia (ok, there are other saints too, but Élodie is a popular name in France). And Mohammed was NOT a prophet of God any more than Joseph Smith. Is it totally ungrateful of me to not take that observation down from all of my blogs, where I put it last time in 3 September this year ... very briefly, in the context you can check here: http://ppt.li/333 ?

But supposing I were, would it not be better for them if I came off the street, ceased begging, by becoming published on paper in paid book or booklet versions too?

So, I am doing my work literally for, at the moment, VERY little income. Thanks for mentioning other honourable people who are doing their stuff same way (or even with some more than I have)!

... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

1) ... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate, 2) ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

My original comment on a video at 25:31

What if the Tower of Babel was as simple as a Cape Canaveral, him hoping to get up above planets and fixed stars?

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I like that. Using rockets to send bibles to aliens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As if there were "aliens"!

Up there, there are angels, and Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Meaning, above the stars.

My take on ToB was Nimrod was trying to conquer Heaven by technical force.

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Read up on astronomy and you will understand why nothing can be above the stars. Alternatively , stick to your bible and remain ignorant. The choice is yours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Reductionist - I am very WELL aware of the modern astronomy and cosmology. I just do not believe it.

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Give me an example of something you do not believe about astronomy/ cosmology !

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm still [a few days later] waiting to hear what it is about cosmology that you do not believe. If you are right, you could be in line for a Nobel prize.

Let's hear from you !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nobel prizes are so made by the Nobel committe, which is Swedish and so secularist (peace prize is by a Norwegian committee).

I do not believe Heliocentrism. As a consequence, I do not belive the angles of annual movement observed in alpha Centauri and 63 Cygni make a watertight or even half secure case for 4 and 11 light years, and as a consequence, I am free to consider stars as forming a relatively thin layer around a globe centred on earth and held together by an aether firmament that God is moving around us daily. This also means, one can be above the stars, locally. The Seraphim and Cherubim are, so is Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. So are the souls of the blessed.

This is where I believe or at least figure Nimrod and the Babel builders were trying to head by sheer travel.

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

So you believe pictures taken from satellites showing that the planets orbiting the sun are fakes ? As for the rest, you have clearly made up your mind what you want to believe and ignore anything which might contradict your chosen belief-system. The more intelligent of us look at ALL the available evidence and then make our minds up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So you believe pictures taken from satellites showing that the planets orbiting the sun are fakes ?"

How does ANY picture taken by satellites show Earth orbitting the Sun?

Perhaps same way as pictures taken from Moon (unless these are a fake), and these moving pictures, show Earth turning? Well, if Moon is turning around Earth, that can easily be shown due to the moving angle from which the pictures are taken.

"The more intelligent of us look at ALL the available evidence and then make our minds up."

I'll take that as meaning I am among the more intelligent ones, which is of course a compliment and probably untrue. You make me bashful!

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Picture taken at different times show the movement of the planets in relation to the sun.

[true enough, but so do pictures taken from telescopes on earth]

If you believe the sun orbits the earth, please explain how we have seasons !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Picture taken at different times show the movement of the planets in relation to the sun."

Seems legit.

And as a Tychonian Geocentric, I consider the RELATIVE motions the same. Only, the motion you consider to be that of Earth in relation to the Sun, I consider to be that of the Sun in relation to Earth.

"If you believe the sun orbits the earth, please explain how we have seasons !"

• 1) The Sun is going West every day along with the aether, which goes at angular speed of star sphere, full circle a few minutes less than 24 h. This motion is due to God.
• 2) The Sun is ALSO going East in relation to that motion each day, so that the solar day is a full 24 h. This motion is due to an angel that God delegated for this purpose.
• 3) The Ww motion is around an axis that goes through the poles, N and S.
• 4) The Ew motion is however along a plane that is not strictly perpendicular but rather swayed in relation to the axis or to equatorial plane. As a result, it includes positions for Sun both North and South of our equator. As a result, we have seasons.

THIS was commonplace for Geocentric astronomers, and Galileo who knew this at least did not try to make THAT the argument for his case, unlike you who have presumably never been told the Geocentric version of the story.

Reductionist

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are so wrong that I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that if the sun behaved as you believe, we would have no seasons as we know them. Put another way we would cycle through 4 seasons every 24 hours.

I don't know how you came to believe what you do , but I shall not attempt to explain what is really going on as something tells me you are not open to rational explanation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Let me just say that if the sun behaved as you believe, we would have no seasons as we know them. Put another way we would cycle through 4 seasons every 24 hours."

You suck at reading skills.

The angel of the Sun is getting a RIDE Westward each day, courtesy of God turning the aether around us. This is in a circle perpendicular to axis through poles. He is ALSO touring another circle Eastward which takes him a year to get through. This circle, commonly known as zodiac, is NOT perpendicular to the axis of the poles, and therefore the Sun is in March and September circling each day above equator, in late December above the Southern Tropic (Capricorn) and in late June above the Northern Tropic (Cancer).

Got it this time?

"as something tells me you are not open to rational explanation."

If one of us is not, it is you. Perhaps just a question of reading skills, perhaps a question of dishonesty. Don't know for sure.

But my explanation very certainly would NOT get the consequence you painted out.

Updates

may turn up.