Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - geckothegeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49  Next >
1
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.d
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.

Assuming that if you are looking at the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, it IS true that Australia DOES appear to be 2x the width that it actually IS, which IS obvious to the most casual observer.

2
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
Just like the ice wall it can't be seen. ???
Cars have planetary gears. Why can't the flat earth ?

3
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:54:11 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.

But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???

That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.

If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think  you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)

The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.

If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.

Once more !
There are several ice shelfs on the coast of Antarctica, but they are not a continuous ice wall.
Antarctica is an island continent and not a "rim continent."
And finally there is no such thing as an ice wall.
And there is no such thing as a flat earth.
But no matter how many facts you may post, flat earthers are just going to deny them any way.
So........What's the use ?

You just have to take this flat earth stuff like this.:
 If the earth was flat, this is the way some people might think it might be....however weird that might be ! LOL !

5
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 23, 2017, 03:23:23 AM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.

But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???

That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.

If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think  you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)

The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.

If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.

I fail to see why this has any thing to with the so-called "ice wall"....or reality for that matter.
There is absolutely no proof of it, while the size and shape of Antarctica are known. Antartica as a continent is fact ; the ice wall is nothing but fiction.....as well as the whole flat earth flat earth fantasy.

Bottom line: Where is there any proof of an ice wall or a flat earth ?

If anyone wants to engage in this disussion, you are welcome to it. I'm leaving.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 22, 2017, 03:24:34 PM »
Hi, new hear. Have been hearing about this idea for awhile, and some of it makes sense. I have some problem with the wall, lol. I don't understand what it is: is it like an actual wall that someone built? Or is it just the frozen edge? I know that pictures aren't counted as proof on this forum but is there a picture of the wall? My bf thinks I'm nuts, but I'm really curious.

There are also some flat earthers who say that the Bipolar Projection is the flat earth map of the world.
That map shows Antarctica as a Continent.
The ice wall is not shown, but the ocean does not overflow over the edge because the water in the ocean freezes and causes an ice dam because it is so cold because it is so far from the sun at the edge of the flat earth.

7
Just in it for the lols: I've already criticised you for nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry. It would help if you tried responding to your debate counterparts. Repeating your error over and over again does not make your argument any more convincing.
Gecko: Yes, we know you think the Earth is round, you've said it about 1027 times at this point.

Thanks for the count !  Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times  "around"  (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !

8
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 22, 2017, 02:45:27 PM »
Gecko. I get your assessments: I was a math major originally. However why did you estimate the diameter?

Just a guess. I figured that if you cut up the globe and laid it flat, the diameter of the flat earth would be the distance from the ice wall on one side of the disc to the ice wall on the opposite side of the disc. No math involved.

Really, in all reality (which is something that doesn't seem to be in the flat earth vocabulary or dictionary) that ice wall and the horizon (or lack of both for lack of evidence for both )seem to be (in the words of another poster of this forums) "Nails in the flat earth coffin."  They're not nails ! They're spikes !  ;D

9
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 22, 2017, 04:37:40 AM »
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy  (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and  worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better.   :-(
C'est la vie !

I was in the Navy as well. The conspiracy ran so deep as to be included in both our over the horizon calculations as well as earth rotation calculations for fire control solutions. It's a good thing we did not need to be very accurate with our projectiles or those parts of the calculations would have really thrown off our large projectile delivery to target!

Did you ever see a Navy Manual For Lookouts which has a chart for estimating the distant to the horizon according to the height of the observer above the level of the sea ?

Flat Earth would say :
"It is not accurate because it is based on assuming that there is a curvature of the earth because it assumes that the earth is a globe. The Navy should discard this manual and replace it with a flat earth manual because there is no curvature on a flat earth.The Navy Manual is obviously full of lies and was written by members of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat."

At least that is my guess as to what they might say about a Manual For Lookouts with those charts and figures. LOL.

One of my assignments as an ET in the Navy was on a shipboard surface search radar. If the earth was flat it could theoretically have had an infinite range. But as it was its range was limited to the distance to the horizon, which in turn was limited by the height of the antenna because of the curvature earth -  the earth being a globe . If the earth was flat they could have put the antenna on a lot shorter mast and saved the Navy some money !

10
That map is just one type of many projections made from the globe.
It is simply a Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.
It is as simple as that.
Nothing more and nothing less.

11
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.

This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.

stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.

Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".

Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.

3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.

Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.

Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:



Can you prove that "the following" map is not a copy of the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the globe ?
If you can, cite the source for verification.
You can't prove that is anything other than a projection any more than you can prove the size and shape of Australia is an accurate depiction.

12
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.

This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.

The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:


Why did you skip over the math and pluck the one thing out you could defend against?


So you claim this is an accurate map?  Would be nice to have a baseline for debate.

Using this map, how would you measure the distances of width of The United States and Australia ?
Both are about equal.
But on the flat earth map the width of Australia is shown as being much greater than that of The United States.
If this is an accurate map how do you account for this discrepancy ?
By saying the map is not a projection are you saying this is just because you deny it ?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 21, 2017, 05:24:12 PM »
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.

FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
 
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.

I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d

Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.



So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles



It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !

P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .

Gecko, let's be fair, surface distance from north pole to south is half circumference of the globe, so while fe 'maps' show that distance as nearly the radius of the earth disc, thus making the wall nearly the circumference, your figures are still based on a globe converted to a disk. Unfortunately for the fe model, using shadow measurements to a low sun they still come up with 25k mile circumference based on 12,250 equator (fe wiki forms section). So presuming your figures for the antarctic survey are correct and well documented in a way that is irrefutable, fe still has many thousands of miles to account for.

How did they come up with a 12,250 mile equator ?
If I use the 12,250 mile equator, I come up with  38,465 miles for the circumference of the ice wall ?

But due to a lack of a flat earth map without distortion I find it difficult to determine the circumference of the ice wall.
If I adjust the diameter of the flat earth map from the inner side to inner side of the ice wall (where ocean meets ice wall) to 4 inches that gives the circumference of the inner side of the ice wall as 12.56 inches. But if I should know for certain the diameter of this circle in miles and  by what scale to use I could determine the circumference of the ice wall. Perhaps there is a simple solution  and the circumference of ice wall should be known to The Flat Earth Society. As has been stated so many times, we do know the coastline of the Continent of Antarctica is about 11,000 miles. The lack of an accurate map is one of the greatest shortcomings of the idea of a flat earth.

14
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.

This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.

stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.

Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".

Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.

3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.

Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.

Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:




But if it is a true flat earth map, is it accurate in all areas ?

15
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 21, 2017, 03:55:39 PM »
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy  (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and  worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better.   :-(
C'est la vie !

16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 21, 2017, 04:19:08 AM »
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.

FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
 
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.

I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d

Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.



So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles



It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !

P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .

17
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 20, 2017, 09:33:00 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.

But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???

That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.

If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think  you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)

18
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 19, 2017, 10:13:48 PM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake".  It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.

Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!

I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.

Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!

That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.

Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.

How does any of what you said refute the fact that this floating iceberg is not even remotely an indication of some kind of "huge" 150 foot wall keeping us from finding out the earth is flat?

The bottom line is :

By the usual flat earth definition the so-called ice wall would have to be a continuous wall of ice, 150 feet in height,  with a circumference of about 78,000 miles around the rim or edge of the so-called flat earth.
But all of this is false for the reasons stated.
Antarctica is not "The Rim Continent."
It is shown this way because of the distortion on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection-of the globe.
Antarctica is a continent which has been surveyed, mapped and photographed.
The circumference or coast line of Antarctica is only 11,000 miles.
There is no flat earth map.
The earth is not flat.
The earth is a globe.

19
Flat earthers would say that it is a hologram or projected image of ISS made by NASA :)
How much shitty garbage nonsense they can give you instead of a simple and straightforward explanation.

When I observe the Universe through my telescope I feel that amazing feeling of exploring distant worlds. It's mind blowing that the light coming through your eyepiece was emitted thousands of years ago. The star is even not there anymore. And what about galaxies? It's even more amazing.
You are so closed minded. You will sit here on earth, look up in the sky and think about firmament and light glued to it. You cannot even explain events like Venus transition over the Sun surface, Eclipses (no matter Solar, Lunar or even eclipses of Jupiter moons), nothing. So pathetic. I pity you.

Another eye-opening experience  (If you will pardon the pun ! LOL) is a visit to a local astronomical observatory.
Especially one on a low-light-pollution area such as Mc Donald Observatory in Texas.
Flat Earthers could learn a lot, especially on a night Star Party, but they probably are not interested.
Too far from their windows.
Also they would probably say all those stars , planets, nebulae, etc. are just a hologram projected on the dome by NASA.
At Mc Donald, they had some telescopes aimed at Saturn, a  Nebula and some other objects.
Flat Earthers would probably say those telescopes just had pictures on them, painted by NASA.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: To any flat earther...
« on: June 05, 2017, 03:45:32 PM »
If you guys are 100% "woke", intelligent, "not brainwashed", smarter than 99% of the world etc, etc....Why exactly do you choose to waste your time & superior knowledge trying to prove


Had to stop you there because no one tries to prove anything.   Sparsely populated WIKI and FAW that's spoken of as if it's a bible etc.

ENAG and "The Sacred Texts" are the flat earth bibles. Written by the Prophet and Saint Sir Samuel Birley Rowbotham, PhD, MD , in the 19th Century.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49  Next >