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 - Roger G

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first.

Just a FYI, OP didn’t ask you specifically. OP used the [you] tag, which displays the name of whoever is viewing the post. It is fine and fun in the lower fora, but misleading in the upper fora.

Sorry Junker I must still be battered by the ban, so it would be great if you could explain please. The OP concluded his original post with 'What do you think, Roger G? Good shit, or bunk shit?' My apologies if I misunderstood, but he did appear to be asking me what I thought, especially as I hadn't previously viewed it as you banned me earlier.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but it would help my future posting if I understand  :)

Thanks for your help,


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 23, 2017, 11:34:06 PM »
I think that providing photos or video as evidence of anything has been discounted as anything can be faked, that applies as much to qualifications as anything else. Thork himself has said that on other threads, so you really can't swing it both ways. As a pilot myself, I'm sure he has some experience of flying, but I have already made it clear that I won't discuss flying with him further as he has offered misrepresented information in other places in this thread.

I have attached a photo, not to prove or disprove anything, but to make a point about photographic evidence, if you have the skills, you can do what you like with it. I would though still appreciate a civilised answer to my earlier question as to what aspect of his flying has confirmed to him that the world is flat, whether it is through international navigation, inaccuracies in airway or general navigational maps, or just the view out of the cockpit. Perhaps the view from his aircraft has shown that he can see his destination from hundreds of miles away, rather than appearing over the horizon. As a commercial pilot, how does he plot a transatlantic or oceanic route? I really would like to know.


I'm back after my 3 day ban, having missed this entire thread. The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first. I think the video is interesting and would be difficult to fake such a complex moving image in any software that I know. It would be possibly simpler if the video was not zooming in and out and showing handheld movement. It has certainly been taken with a high degree of zoom to enhance the effect of curvature, did someone say 83x? One of my video cameras has an optical zoom of 40 times and a digital zoom of 1500x so I can confirm from my own experiences that extreme zoom can give views that the naked eye wouldn't. The video shown by the OP seems to have been taken at a lower height then the later video and at a much more acute angle to the pylon line, which would make it much clearer if there apparent curvature in the relationship between the height of the towers receding into the distance. The second video is taken from a little higher as far as I can see, but more importantly, is taken at a far less acute angle and with a poor quality lens, probably a phone, so with less towers clearly visible close together it's not really practical to say there is no curvature visible. As has been said, neither video is conclusive proof of RE or FE, although the OP is more convincing. There are better bays to conduct the horizon experiment that I will have a go at next Spring as I am in a part of the UK that has some suitable areas. I will also be taking my boat out to sea again and taking some video of things appearing over the horizon in real time, both at deck height and with a masthead camera.

What is quite interesting from this thread is that both Baby Thork and Tom love to use the 'anything can be photo shopped' get out, but in common with many other denials quite clearly have absolutely no idea of what is possible and not possible in photo shop.I would love to here from either of them how they would go about the process in technical detail as evidence. Photo shop is a photographic processing software programme that can enable the user to do some amazing editing and is a programme that I use almost every day in my business. I also use a couple of video editing programmes daily, and after 35 years of making videos, would love to be able to do half the things that are claimed on this forum. Using High end film company CGI facilities, rotoscoping and very sophisticated techniques are possible to highly trained and skilled operatives, but they are hardly going to waste their time on amateur handheld footage when they can earn big money in the CGI industry.


Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 23, 2017, 08:56:08 PM »
It seems from your posts that you will believe what you want to believe, based on your own interpretations, or take other people's totally unsubstantiated ideas and imaginative interpretations as acceptable alternatives. It takes far more thorough investigation to find out the real facts about the world about us, not just what imagination and fantasy excites us to believe. I would like to believe that UFOs are really extraterrestrial  space craft, and as such have spent a lifetime reading stories and reports, listening to fantastic claims, denials and conspiracy theories. I have seen and experienced unexplainable sights, but have yet to see any absolute evidence so far that UFOs are spaceships. I have trawled through countless videos on junk websites to see clearly misleading and misguided interpretations of perfectly ordinary things, but others will see what they desperately want to see without being objective or just denying the reasonable explanations of those who have greater experience.

It does take a huge amount of time and effort to get away from dreams and fantasy and get involved in real in depth research. Why not pick something that interests you and find out what experiments were carried out, who did the experiments, and read the actual documented results. Then compare the results and documents with other experiments carried out to check the veracity of the original experiments. For any serious hypothesis, there will be a paper trail that can be followed to check both methods and results. It will be a time consuming search but will give you a lot more real information than you will ever pick up on sites like this.


Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 23, 2017, 05:25:36 PM »
'Regardless of where I and others who're already here came from, or how we got here, we're here now, and some of us, including some of my ancestors, have now been here for centuries.
We're citizens and new or would be arrivals are not, not yet, and so it should be up to us to decide how many immigrants we permit, and where from.
We don't owe them a living, and in many cases we're doing them and the corporations who take advantage of their cheap labor a favor.
I want to protect our environment, I want to protect jobs.
Europeans built their civilizations from the ground up without the aid of mass immigration, and North Americans can continue building ours without importing millions, if we wish, and many of us do.
And some ethnoreligious groups may be more compatible with our civilization than others.
I'm for reducing the quantity and increasing the quality of immigration, importing millions of 'refugees' from war torn countries we're at odds with, does just the opposite of that'

If you really think that European countries were built from the ground up, you really ought to spend some time reading learning about European history. It wasn't called immigration in previous centuries, it was called invasion and conquest, with Just about every country in Europe and the Middle east being regularly repopulated from Roman times onwards. You are basing so many of your arguments on a shaky foundation of history knowledge that it becomes difficult to argue with you.


So after starting this thread, I got banned for making an innocuous tongue in cheek comment in another thread, but when I return here I find that my thread about the COLUMBIA Tragedy has been derailed by Tom into a fantasy conspiracy about the CHALLENGER tragedy.

Can we get it back on track please and respond to my original question about what happened to Columbia? Is there another stack of photos of doppelgangers that don't look like the originals and ridiculous theories regarding the Columbia Astronauts. There is a lot more to cover up there, with a successful launch and orbital mission, plus about 40% of the shuttle and body parts spread over 2000 square miles of Texas. It would also be nice to have an FE other than Tom just for once to post some interesting ideas.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 19, 2017, 05:15:43 PM »
'Oh, I understand the purpose of trimming an aircraft and l/d/t/w ratio. I've flown a couple planes in my time, as well. (a 172 and a T-6 Texan) My point was about the concept of straight and level on a curved Earth. The mechanisms used to determine straight and level follow the Earth's curve. As we know, gravity created by the Earth is spherical. In 1g flight, you're flying the curve of the Earth. If BT was truly as educated as he likes to claim, he would know exactly why "straight and level" is a bit misleading in this instance.'

My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.

Apart from some P2 in light aircraft my piloting is strictly limited to gliders and motor gliders. I could have converted in just 3 hours plus a GFT to a PPL from my senior instructor gliders rating, but just had no interest in following an engine around, just found gliding more satisfying and quieter. A bit like the difference between sailing and motor boating, give me sailing anytime, particularly if I can get up the mast and see navigation points over the horizon  :D


Flat Earth Investigations / What happened with the Space Shuttle Columbia.
« on: December 19, 2017, 03:03:48 PM »
I've searched through the forums and looked at a few references to the Space shuttle generally, but can't find any explanations so am interested in the FE ideas about the last Columbia flight.

As the general FE position is that orbital space flight is impossible and the ISS is actually CGI generated, I wondered if I could get a few answers to some of these points:-

1) The mission with 7 astronauts on board was launched and according to NASA and other sources entered orbit and carried out experiments for 16 days, where did the shuttle go after launch?
2) If the mission was faked, where was the shuttle and crew during those 16 days?
3) What was the cause of the burning debris flying through the upper atmosphere caught on camera and radar exactly where the shuttle should have been on re-entry?
4) Where did the debris scattered over 2000 square miles of Texas come from?
5) If the flight was faked, where did the pieces of bodies recovered on the ground come from that matched the DNA of the Astronauts?.
6) If the crew weren't killed during the flight, when and why were they killed?

I look forward to some reasoned answers.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 19, 2017, 02:30:34 PM »
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.

But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.

What you think is straight and level is actually a very large curve. At a local level, the curve is irrelevant and local features are more important. It seems like you probably don't quite understand the globe and how level is determined.
The purpose of the trimmer is to reduce load on the control surfaces, so when a pilot settles into a steady climb after take off for example, he would trim the aircraft so that there is no need to constantly pull back on the controls. The same during descent or with any change of altitude. In normal straight and level flight, as BT said, the aircraft would indeed be trimmed for flight with no pressure on the controls being required. The effect would be the same on an RE or FE because the same lift/drag/thrust/weight ratio would be maintained to balance against the downward pull of gravity or the upward movement of UA. Curvature of the earth is irrelevant, because for the aircraft to gain height would require an increase in vertical acceleration and therefore thrust, as would a downward movement require a decrease in both models.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 19, 2017, 12:59:09 PM »
It feels like hell might freeze over, but Baby Thork is right about Air Tractors. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of them.

They're different from Pawnees, but they look sort of similar.

The name comes from the agricultural usage of the aircraft, you see.
Hi Doug,
Pawnees have been used for years as crop sprayers because of their strength and all around visibility. I have no experience of agricultural flying or their terminology, although I suspect the word 'Airtractor' is used by the manufacturer in the sales to the agricultural world, seems like a good ploy as it's Farmer friendly. In the UK Gliding world, towing aircraft are universally known as 'Tug aircraft' or simply 'Tow planes', with the pilots being called 'Tug Pilots'. Wheeled tractors are frequently used for towing gliders on the ground because of their low speed ability and torque, and using the word 'Tractor' for a towing aircraft could be confusing. I doubt there are any other experienced glider pilots on this forum, but if there are I'm sure they will be in agreement.

BT is not right about tug aircraft in gliding being called Air Tractors, but may be familiar with that particular aircraft as an Air Tractor from other experiences, but not from the world of gliding :-)


Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 19, 2017, 12:31:08 PM »

1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?
Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

I don't need to trust anyone to know getting hit by a car will injure me, I've been hit with smaller, slower moving objects than cars, and I got damaged, and I've seen people get hit by cars, and they got damaged, so I can infer what will in all likelihood happen to me.

All that being said, we have to balance faith or trust and doubt.
The more people claim something, from all walks of life, mainstream experts, alt experts and people in general, the more I've confirmed similar claims for myself, the less valid reasons I can think of for why the people making the claim may be exaggerating, lying or mistaken, and so forth, the more I'm inclined to believe the claim, even never having tested it myself.

It's not that I don't trust science at all, it's that I trust science a lot less than you, especially when it comes to say medicine.
But I've decided not to trust a single thing scientists have to say about the heavens until I can confirm it myself, as a hobby.
As far as I know, there's no way suspending judgment about the Noumea behind the Phenomena of the heavens can harm me in any way, and if almost everything they have claimed is correct, than big science has nothing to fear from people like me.
Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

Philosophers, Theologians etc, are expressing opinions which differentiates them from scientists who are carrying out research and experiments to disprove or prove a hypothesis. Those experiments can be emulated to check their veracity. When the hypothesis is proven to be incorrect, then a new hypothesis will be established to cover the new findings. That's how science works and why old ideas get disguarded. Medicine is a little different in that there is more reliance on observing results rather than mathematics and physical experiments. Incorrect decisions may take decades to become apparent, but treatment is based on the best available information at the time, particularly where there is a life or death situation. Blood letting incidentally was frequently found to be successful and many of the successes would be due to similar factors involved with blood transfusions. In other cases though it was fatal and due to lack of understanding at the time.

Your problem is that you doubt even the most basic of things because you don't understand them. The whole point of an education is that you get to learn things that others have researched and learned before you. During your education, particularly the sciences, you will be shown and take part in experiments that demonstrate results that have been previously learned so that you can understand them. If you find areas of education that are of particular interest to you, you can go on to higher education in that field where you will learn more and experiment more. You could then follow through into university where you will get into much deeper understanding of what has gone before, including experimentation to prove it. You will though, at university, have access to much more expensive and sophisticated equipment and will be encouraged to take work experience placings in scientific establishments where you may well be experimenting on new hypothesis and theories to push the boundaries of knowledge ever further forward. If you are smart enough, you may even get to develop your own ideas and if they are worth investigating have your own team around you to research.

I don't know where you are in this chain of educational events, but would assume at the starting point, so there is no reason why you couldn't follow a course that would lead you to the answers you are looking for. You will NEVER get the answers by watching videos on YouTube and aligning yourself with conspiracy theorists.


Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..
« on: December 19, 2017, 11:56:47 AM »
One idea I heard was that it was theoretically possible to place solar panels on the moon to harvest the sun's rays and then this electricity could actually be "sent" to a receiving station on earth!

Similar to the idea of having phones that charge without being plugged directly in,

Stick that up your hoop fossil fuels!  >o<

I broke the usb charging input on my phone and now have a wireless charger for it. I think it uses bendy light or magic perspective  :D


Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 19, 2017, 11:50:22 AM »
Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority or other minorities from minorities.

You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticize of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around reasonable criticism of minorities.

You are unfortunately missing one basic fundamental point. In a democracy, YOU control the government, you can change it, that's what the vote is all about and how Trump got in. You can never let individuals take control and decide what is acceptable as criticism, because those with the biggest fists, knives or guns will wrest the control from the weaker individuals and shout down and intimidate all opposition. Look at ISIS if you want to see a modern example.

It's not that I missed your point about democracy, it's that I wasn't sure what point you were making, it sounded like you were saying we should just trust the 'experts' and let them decide everything, and not even have a democracy, or that a democracy was only right insofar as it trusted the experts.

Ideally we're a democracy, but really our government is often out of our control.
For example are you sure most people think you shouldn't be able to question the 'holocaust', or that most people want immigration, period, let alone millions of 'refugees', if that's even what they are?

If we're not allowed to criticize certain religions, like Islam, and the people who take it seriously (AKA extremists), as they grow in popularity in certain regions of the west, these people will run amok, change and flout our laws, and one day in the not so distant future they may even vote in a tyrannical government or stage a coup.
And then they'll be limiting our freedom of speech, and a whole lot more.

Lastly, I think there's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, in a democracy it's perhaps the most fundamental freedom.
You see if you forbid people to speak for or against x, then to even suggesting that law be lifted, could itself be interpreted as speaking for or against x, and so we run the risk of banning some speech for all time, for setting something in stone.
I think having openly dialogue is really essential to what it means to be a democracy, you start limiting that, and you're basically saying citizens can't be trusted, or if it's only a few 'fools', if that's really what they are, that can't be trusted, you're still giving up the most important freedoms in a democracy, the freedom to come together, honestly and openly debate and discuss policy and the issues.
Nobody is saying you can't question things, but if you are unhappy about immigration, or various government policies then take the various democratic routes available to you to change the government and the people that have been voted in to represent you. Rabble rousing is how non democratic societies operate, in a democracy, the MAJORITY gets the say which is how it should be. That should follow balanced and reasonable discussion, not spewing out hate and threats anonymously across the internet.

I'm afraid that Holocaust denial has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech and everything to do with Racism and anti sematism. If you want to question the holocaust then research it properly and talk to some of the now ageing servicemen or their families, that found the concentration camps and thousands of piled corpses awaiting burning or burial. My Father was one of those soldiers and was too disgusted and horrified to discuss it with even decades later.  Talk to the survivors and descendants of some of the millions of Jews, Gypsies and mentally ill people who were slaughtered because they were despised because of the propaganda spouted out about them.

You want to talk about the immigration of the thousands of refugees and foreigners coming to the US, but America is almost completely built on immigration, Trump's family were German, where did your family come from? You're worried about Muslim immigrants taking your way of life, but I don't see you getting upset about the native American Indians being slaughtered, lands stolen off of them and forced into a Christian way of life. What about you standing up for the rights of millions of Black people in the US? Their ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and forced into slavery in the US at the hands of wealthy white people, are you standing up for their freedom of speech and the right to the same freedoms you have? The Ku Klux Klan had freedom of speech and white folks turned their backs while the rapes and murders were being carried out.

You really ought to look in your own backyard and research your own country's history and moral standards to really get your head around democracy and free speech and what place minority views have in your interpretation of it.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 19, 2017, 10:29:58 AM »
'You claim to be a pilot, you claim to have studied trigonometry in middle school,'

I think you missed out the degree in Aerospace Engineering!


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth not a globe - floating Earth
« on: December 18, 2017, 11:27:19 PM »
Not that I find Rowbotham to be a particularly great source but it’s nit fair to discredit all of his ideas based on some ludicrous ideas. If that were the case you would be forced to dismiss Newton because of his occultic and alchemical beliefs. ENaG should be, and largely has been, debunked piece by piece. To do otherwise merely gives Tom Bishop ammunition.

The trouble is that no matter how comprehensively one of Rowbothams pieces is debunked, Tom will simply ignore it and quote exactly the same source in another thread as evidence.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amatuer recordings of planets.
« on: December 18, 2017, 10:31:46 PM »
Thinking about it, how was it explained during Geocentrism? Because for most celestial things FE IS essentially an offshoot of Geocentrism, although Tom likes to call it Heliocentric because all the planets orbit the sun. (Remember, Earth isn't a planet.) I'll admit my knowledge of the Geocentric view is quite limited.
Geocentrism works not too badly to explain how the heavenly bodies move as observed from earth.  It was the mechanism that was hard to explain.  If you consider the sun, it could orbit the earth once a day and light half the earth at a time. If the earth moved up and down within its sphere, it could cause seasons and allow the north to have longer days in summer etc.  The ancients did not know Mercury and Venus had phases, since you need a telescope to see that.  The planets followed a sphere within a sphere path that explains things like retrograde motion.  The more accurate people could see things (with telescopes for example) the more complex the geocentric system became.  All of this assumed a round earth with the sun orbiting the equator as we know it in a round earth world.  On a flat earth, the spotlight of the sun has a hard time explaining how the southern hemisphere can get equal amounts of light and dark the same as the northern half.  The spotlight of the sun has to reach a lot farther for the south part of the disk in order to give it a 12 hour daylight day.  How does the tip of south of Chile get as much light on March 21 as Cheyenne Wyoming on a flat earth model?  Easily explained on a geocentric round earth model.
Ah, so it didn't have to contend with the phases and such. Bummer that. Seemed like it would have been a good fit for a rough idea of how things work in the FE model.

Lots of ideas seem to be a rough fit for an FE model of all sorts of things until someone asks another awkward question. Then either the rough fit has to be changed to an even more complicated model or the question ignored or derailed. So we still don't have an FE answer for the phases of the inner planets.


Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..
« on: December 18, 2017, 10:01:33 PM »
Roger G, to you it may be "debunked". But i still believe that 'lunar wave' phenomenon just can't be happening because of refractions of light in Earth's atmosphere.
I just feel that it is different than that!
And if you think i only observe the sky through computer screen and youtube videos, then you're both right and wrong.
I do mostly use internet to find weird sky-related phenomena. But whenever i'm having some spare time from my normal work and researching, i would be going skywatching.
..And the moon does give me a weird feeling of "fakeness", when i loot at it...

So my answer in-short is:   i just know that there is more to that video than you might think! I just feel it kinda intuitively.

(And don't ever underestimate the power of (human) intuition!
If you train it in yourself enough, it will be very powerful!!)

If you don't want to accept the facts of what you are seeing as something that I can recreate very easily and explain carefully to you, then there is really no point in trying to answer any of your queries. The world is a very baffling place if you don't have the knowledge to understand it. If I show you a video of fairys at bottom of my garden, if you desperately want to believe it's real then you will.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amatuer recordings of planets.
« on: December 18, 2017, 08:51:29 PM »

Presumably for roughly the same reason in RE. It has a wider orbit than Venus and Mercury. Also known as, it doesn't come below the sun. Why? Hell if I know, the FE cosmology is already pretty screwed up to be honest. But remember the moon phases come from a shift of only a few hundred miles up and down, if that.
The only thing that does not make sense with that answer is the idea that some planets could have wider orbits than others.  As alluded to in my thread about An Experiment Everyone can Try, all the planets, the moon and the sun (and the zodiac constellations) have the same width of orbit.  They can all only be seen directly overhead for people between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn and every one can be seen directly overhead at one time or another anywhere between these extremes.  People on the equator are able to see one of the zodiac constellations directly overhead at least once a night and during the two equinoxes, they get to see all of them over the two nights at some time directly overhead.  Since all the zodiac constellations, the moon, the sun and all the planets occupy the same overhead space, and all their orbits follow the equator during the equinox, it really makes explanation for phases hard to come up with.

If you are looking from an RE point of view,  the planets are basically on the same plane as the earth, but a wider orbit means that they are further out in space than we are in their orbit round the sun. Imagine they were all balls on a piece of sting spaced at different distances along the string. If you then whirled the string around your head, that would be similar to the planets going around the sun with the ones nearest the end of the string being the further out or on a wider orbit. The difference with the planets is that unlike the balls on the string, they are orbiting at different speeds, so the outer ones take much longer to complete an orbit.

So to get back to the phases, planets that are further out from the sun than us, will always appear to us to be lit fully by the sun, but planets nearer the sun than us will sometimes have the side that faces us in darkness or partial darkness because the area facing the sun will be lit.

If you want the answers from an FE point of view, you will need to ask an FE believer because I can't see how it would work if the sun is going round a flat disk earth.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stars rotating around their barycentre
« on: December 18, 2017, 06:48:37 PM »
That's a very well put and evidentially supported proof that the earth is in fact a round ball. I just love round earthers who come here with a clear scientific point of view to put as an alternative to flat earth views. Not only that, but he swore as well, so I bet all his little schoolmates wet themselves with laughter at that. He will be a hero in his own classroom.  ;D ::)


Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..
« on: December 18, 2017, 05:33:48 PM »
I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
I kinda agree:

(...) And to me it's obvious what this means: the moon is not solid rock, it's something like a plasma-hologram!

And don't dismiss the whole video just because you didn't like one of the footages in it!

my reply to "What are stars?" topic
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic

I don't think we have ever been to the moon. It's probably impossible.
It's probably impossible that you will ever get laid
REandconfused, why do you use sex and 'reputation of male primate' tactics? Are you a shill? :) :(

Why are you reposting this video from another thread where it was completely and utterly debunked???


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >