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.

Topics - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Suggestions & Concerns / Consistency
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:59:22 AM »
So, this post:

All y’all have fallen for Tom’s trolling again. His argument is the logical equivalent of saying we don’t know the exact value of pi and that it’s an embarrassing failure of mathematics. Technically true, (apart from the failure bit, it’s an irrational number, by definition the exact value can’t be known), but the value is known more than well enough for all practical purposes.
A model of the solar system doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful. The models we have are good enough to make predictions which are then bourne out by observations. I’d like to see Tom use the Saros cycles and flat earth map and model to tell us when and, more importantly exactly where future solar eclipses will be viewable from. The models we have of the globe earth and the solar system seem to be doing that rather well.

Was deemed worthy of a warning. A final warning, no less. Because:

If you want to call people trolls, do so in AR. Rule 1. If you can't figure out how not to attack others, well, we'll help you out.

When I asked why this was worthy of a warning when Pete and Tom have both called other posters liars or accused them of dishonesty/deception in the upper fora the reply was:

You've answered your own question. If someone's lying, it's only sensible to point it out to others, and to warn them against that individual. Dismissing someone's logic as "trolling" is a cheap cop-out, and you will avoid it in the upper. One way or another ;)

I'm not understanding the difference here. Lying and Trolling are similar in that there has to be intent. It is my opinion that Tom was trolling in that thread, but I may be wrong. Pete has often opined that people are lying and he has often been wrong - I know this because I have been the target of those accusations on several occasions and I haven't been lying. Only I know whether I was because only I know my intent.

And if there is a difference, why in this thread:

Is Pete allowed to say:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this thread is nothing short of a cheap troll. I'm going to lock it now.

And he then locks the thread thus giving me no further right of reply.

Neither thread is in AR.
Why is Pete allowed to accuse me of trolling in one thread and then warn me for opining that Tom is trolling in another?

Flat Earth Investigations / Flat Earth Map
« on: January 04, 2019, 12:36:29 PM »
As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

Flat Earth Investigations / The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 03, 2019, 11:21:02 AM »
China have landed a craft on the "dark" side of the moon

I guess the FE response is to call this fake, do the society have any evidence of fakery?

Suggestions & Concerns / Justice 4 MattyWS
« on: November 07, 2018, 04:19:25 PM »
Out of interest, what was wrong with this post that it warranted a ban? It was part of a conversation between him and Thork, I note Thork has not been censured (not should he have been). What rules does this break?

Deniers are deniers, regardless of what it is they deny. To say you're being lumped in with people who deny different things as inaccurate is like saying you're not the same species are black or asian people because you're white, you're still human thus still 'lumped in' with other races in that regard. Not that I'm claiming racism or anything, just a simile.

And IMO flat earthers are definitely deniers. So far from what I've seen on these forums is flat out denying and ignoring evidence and proof they can't refute, and yet unable to explain fully why they think the world is flat as a matter of fact.

I'll grant you one thing though, the use of the logo on his badge was likely not allowed assuming this site has any claim over the licencing of the logo (I wouldn't know for sure myself).

Alright, well I guess the warnings didn't have an impact. Have a few days off to review the rules.

Suggestions & Concerns / Youtube Embedding
« on: October 26, 2018, 02:55:10 PM »
What's up with that?

Couple of YouTube videos recently have been embedded all squished.

Let's try this one:

Flat Earth Community / Common RE Straw Men
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:41:12 AM »
OK, for balance, let's have a RE one too.
While I don't think FET has much merit, there are a lot of people who straw man it and say things like this:

That isn't what FE people believe. The earth is not orbiting the sun in FET, the sun, stars and planet rotate above the plane of the earth.
The earth is not just another planet in the solar system and this one just happens to be flat.

Flat Earth Community / Common FE Straw Men
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:37:40 AM »
I thought it would be good to have a thread where common FE straw men are collated.
Honestly, these things do not paint the FES in a good light.
RE people are often accused of straw manning - with some justification, maybe we should have a separate thread for that - but FE people do it a lot too.

So, to kick us off

The water flies off this spinning ball, why doesn't it fly off the earth if it's spinning so fast?
And the answer, quite simply, is angular velocity. The earth only spins one revolution per day (that is literally the definition of a day), so while yes the speed sounds high, the angular velocity is very low and that's why water and we don't go flying off.

Flat Earth Investigations / Ailsa Craig
« on: October 16, 2018, 02:54:07 PM »
Good video here, dude takes film of a Scottish island from various locations to demonstrate the amount occluded by the curve of the earth from different distances/heights

Suggestions & Concerns / Just Saying...
« on: September 07, 2018, 07:36:43 AM »

normally if we are right about something, it gets ignored.
So, all the time? ;)

Is a good example of a post which I’m pretty sure had it been posted by a RE poster would have resulted in a warning.

Not having a go, but it does feel like there is some inconsistency in how things are modded. I’m not actually sure that’s entirely a bad thing but I personally think there should be consistency when it comes to jokey posts like that. My view is that consistent line should be to allow them, within reason.

“A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...”

Flat Earth Theory / Empiricism and our Senses
« on: August 25, 2018, 11:55:37 AM »
Much is made on here of our senses and how we should use them to determine things such as the shape of the earth.
Few quotes from the Wiki:

Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!
(Number 18)

Shall we blindly believe a theory which in the nature of things is so impracticable, and a theory which directly contradicts the evidences of our God-given senses? We feel no motion; we see no motion; and we hear no motion; while our senses favour the reasonable and demonstrable fact that the earth is stationary.

The average man can’t advance a single reason for believing that the world is round. He accepts that theory on blind faith and rejects the evidence of his own senses.

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses

My question/point is: Is this a reasonable approach to determine truth?
I would say no because our senses are limited and can be fooled.
I'm going to focus here on our vision.
A few examples where we perceive things as different sizes where they are in fact the same:

And this one where squares A and B are in fact the same shade of grey but appear very different because of the shading in surrounding squares:

Context is quite important in how we perceive things. In the moon terminator illusion thread Bobby has demonstrated a real life example where the sun appears to be in completely the wrong place to illuminate the moon but the line between the terminator and the sun is in fact straight.

Another good example is horizon dip. The horizon might appear to be at eye level no matter your altitude but multiple experiments have shown it not to be, and the angle of dip increases with height, consistent with a globe earth. The dip cannot be perceived but it can be measured

To sum up:
Taking an empirical approach is a helpful way of determining truth but our senses are limited and can be fooled.
Relying on our senses alone can only get you so far in learning about our universe, since the invention of things like telescopes and microscopes we have been able to discover a great deal more.
"The horizon looks flat" is not evidence for any particular shape of the earth.


Suggestions & Concerns / GDPR
« on: May 29, 2018, 01:01:10 PM »
Have you guys done anything about GDPR? Not 100% sure you have to, asking because I run a similar board and am not clear if I need to do something.

Flat Earth Community / Flat Earth UK Convention
« on: May 01, 2018, 08:55:35 PM »
It sounds like it was a roaring success:

More than 200 believers paid £107 for the three-day convention in Birmingham.
In the conference room of Birmingham's Jurys Inn hotel, delegates bought and sold flat earth merchandise.

And they had an impressive line-up of highly qualified speakers:

Dave Marsh, an NHS manager who spoke at the conference, said: “My research destroys big bang cosmology.
“It supports the idea that gravity doesn't exist and the only true force in nature is electromagnetism.”
In his speech, Mr Marsh claimed he had disproved planetary motion using a Nikon camera and an app from his back garden

Dave Murphy, a former graphic designer who now lives “off-grid”, also spoke at the convention.

Darren Nesbit, a Bolton-based dance musician who spoke at the conference, claimed Earth is diamond-shaped and supported by pillars.
He said: “I’m not saying this is definitely what is going on, but I think it is a plausible model.”

Did anyone on here go? Had it been in London I might have been tempted.

Flat Earth Theory / Space Tourists
« on: April 30, 2018, 09:34:22 AM »
Space tourism is at best in its infancy. Right now only available to the mega-rich. But a handful of people have done it.
There's a list here:

Here's an interview with one of them, the only women to have done it. she lying? Was she tricked somehow? Is she "in on it" too?

Flat Earth Theory / Sunset At Altitude
« on: April 28, 2018, 03:20:42 PM »
"Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant." - Tom Bishop

I did an experiment to explore the idea that waves could be an explanation for sunset or ships sinking below the horizon. This is the set up

So I built a tower 3 Jenga blocks high and a row of blocks which represent waves. Let's see how much of the tower is hidden behind the waves depending on the eye height. If the eye is below the level of the wave then the amount of tower hidden is more than the height of the wave. More than one block of the tower is hidden. Couple of pictures, the first slightly to the side so you can see that we are looking below wave level, the second looking straight along the row of blocks:

This is explained by this diagram:

You're looking up at the wave so more than the wave height is hidden. Although if the wave that is higher than your eye height is nearer the tower then less of it would be hidden because the angle is shallower:

This is also a demonstration that these side on diagrams don't need to "account for perspective" and do reflect the reality of what you see.
Now let's look at wave height. Here you can see that the amount hidden is the same as the wave height:

Which makes sense. You're looking across the level of the waves so only the height of the wave is hidden:

If you are above the wave level though then less than the wave height is hidden.
Jenga blocks are all the same height but you can clearly see that less than one block is hidden:

And that's because you are looking down over the waves:

Ergo, if you're at altitude you will be looking over the waves so the sun can't be hiding behind them.


Flat Earth Theory / How Far Is The Sun?
« on: April 08, 2018, 08:33:19 PM »
Your Wiki says 3,000 miles:

"Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation
whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away"

But Rowbowtham says it is "considerably less than 700 miles...

Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

So...which is it? What's with the big discrepancy between your Wiki and Rowbotham's experiment?
And what are you doing to determine the true distance?
I have suggested you guys experiment on this, taking observations from a few points and triangulating but haven't had much response.

Flat Earth Theory / Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 01, 2018, 03:29:33 PM »
So, in response to pictures and videos showing a distant tall building over water occluded by the curve of the earth, the claim is the building is actually obscured by waves.
The old "a dime can obscure an elephant" argument, example of the reasoning here:

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured

OK. Firstly, the horizon DOES NOT RISE TO EYE LEVEL.
I don't know why this lie is repeated so often. The simplest diagram will demonstrate that is not true.

Whether the earth is a sphere or flat, in either case the horizon will be BELOW eye level, the person is looking slightly downwards:
The confusion here is that the horizon is very close to eye level. This graph shows that even at an altitude of 20 miles, far higher than any normal human experience, the dip is only about 6 degrees:

But there IS a dip and the dip is measurable with the right equipment. If flat earthers are so bothered about empiricism, as they claim, why don't they test this?

Anyway. Waves. Let's assume that the waves are around a meter high and your eye level is nearer 2 meters. You can see in this diagram that because you can see over the waves the only part of the building which would be obscured is just under a meter by the farthest wave:

And note that this is the worst cast scenario, in real life buildings are not built on the beach, the building would be some meters above sea level and not obscured at all by waves on a flat earth.

If the wave was as high as eye level then then the amount of building occluded would be the height of eye level.

Note that as this is a straight line it doesn't matter which wave is as high as eye level.
But what if the wave is higher than eye level? Here it would occlude more of the building:

And here it DOES matter which wave is higher than eye level, the closer the high wave the more of the building occluded:

This is where Tom's claim gets a bit ridiculous because he says:
"any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up[/quote]

My empahsis. So he's claiming there that it's waves on the horizon which can obscure buildings. Although I've seen him elsewhere claim that the horizon is the vanishing point where perspective lines meet so by definition you couldn't see anything beyond that anyway.

So, in brief it's actually waves closer to you that could obscure distant buildings. But they can only obscure more of the building than their own height if they are higher than your eye level. So if you're a few meters above sea level it can't be waves obscuring the buildings unless the waves are higher than that which, across a narrow channel, they are unlikely to be.

The infamous Bishop experiment:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore"

For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.

Suggestions & Concerns / Wiki and Forum Order on Home Page
« on: February 08, 2018, 03:36:45 PM »
On the home page the Wiki link is to the right of the Forum link.
I just see a lot of people signing up and their first post is asking something which is dealt with in the Wiki.
Just wondering if swapping these so the Wiki is first would encourage them to go there before signing up and posting things like that.

Suggestions & Concerns / Database Errors
« on: February 08, 2018, 10:34:40 AM »
I'm getting database errors when trying to reply to the "Car In Space" thread :(

Flat Earth Theory / Long Shadows At Sunset
« on: February 05, 2018, 04:54:57 PM »
In the flat earth model the sun at sunset is about 6000 miles away horizontally and 3000 miles above the earth. Yes?
So how does the flat earth model explain the long shadows you see at sunset?

The FE Wiki has this diagram when explaining how the sun could be calculated to be 3000 miles high if the earth was flat:

So your own diagram agrees that shadow length depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which casts a shadow. No perspective is accounted for in this diagram, nor does it need to be. That is not how shadows work. Photons from a light source hit an object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the object and the light source.

In the above diagram if we take 'h' to be 3000 and 'a' to be 6000. Let's say the height of the object at R1 is 1 and the length of its shadow is 'x':

The triangle formed by the object, its shadow and the ray from the sun is a similar triangle (in the mathematical sense) to
the triangle formed by the shadow+the horizontal distance to the sun, the vertical line from the ground to the sun and the ray from the sun (which is the shared hypotenuse of both triangles)

So: h/a+x = 1/x. Plugging in the numbers:
3000/6000+x = 1/x (multiply both sides by 'x')
3000x/6000+x = 1 (multiply both sides by '6000+x')
3000x = 6000+x (subtract 'x' from both sides)
2999x = 6000, so...
x = 6000/2999 - let's call that 2 for simplicity.

So the shadow is pretty much twice the height of the object. Which is what you'd expect if you think about it, the sun is twice as far away horizontally as it is high. The only way of making the shadow longer is to move it further away horizontally or move it lower in the sky. In the round earth model the sun is physically lower in the sky as the earth rotates, hence the long shadows. What is the flat earth explanation?
Perspective does not work as an explanation here, shadows depend on the PHYSICAL location of the light source and the object, not your or anyone else's perspective. Note that there are no units above, it could be 3000cm, meters, inches, yards or miles. So long as the 1, 3000 and 6000 are in the same units the unit of the shadow is the same so distance doesn't matter.

I should also say that perspective cannot make an object 3000 miles high appear to sink slowly below the horizon. Tom cites rail tracks which appear to converge

Note that "appear to" is the key phrase there. They don't really converge as this detail from the above shows:

Think about how we see things. Light bounces off an object and travels in a straight line to our eyes.
In this diagram you can see that the rays from the tracks at 'A' meet at the person who is looking at a bigger angle than the light at 'B':

So 'A' will appear to be bigger than 'B'. And there will be a distance at which the two rails can no longer be distinguished but that is only because of the limitation of the resolution of your eye.
Magnification would show that a gap still exists between the rails.
The angle of light rays will never be zero because the sleeper forms the hypotenuse and the light rays form the other two sides of an isosceles triangle. The hypotenuse remains constant so while the angle at the "apex" of the triangle becomes smaller with distance it is never 0 (apart from at infinity).

Long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is either physically low in the sky (as round earth model claims) or the light is bending somehow so it appears so.

Flat Earth Theory / Somewhere Beyond The Sea...
« on: January 12, 2018, 01:29:03 PM »
I'm trying to understand what the FE position is about things disappearing over the horizon at sea.
The conversation generally goes something like:

RE: "Ships disappear below the horizon, hull first. That can only be explained by a round earth"
FE: "No, the hull can be restored by a telescope, it does not disappear behind a hill of water"
RE: "OK, how about this <insert picture/video>? That clearly shows the hull/building behind the curve of the earth"
FE: "Waves..."

It's "Heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning. If the hull can be "restored" then that proves a flat earth.
If it can't then it doesn't prove a round earth, it's just waves. Is the claim that this video:

Is caused by waves? He shows where the different shots were taken from, looking at the times when he shows the GPS readings it looks like the same afternoon and the weather doesn't seem significantly different. While the channel does connect with the ocean, you can see that the water is pretty calm in all the shots as you would expect in a fairly narrow channel like this. It's not the open ocean. If waves were a factor you would expect the amount of the building you can see to vary significantly as the swell comes and goes, but you can't.

Also, the infamous Bishop Experiment ( )
claims that:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

No photographic or video evidence of this claim is supplied on the Wiki. Tom also says that:

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

(my emphasis).

These observations are across a bay which, like the above channel is open to the sea. Arguably more open to the sea than the channel. So why aren't waves a problem here? Tom claims he can reproduce this result "over and over throughout the year", waves are apparently never an issue. But videos like the above are simply explained by waves? You can't have it both ways...

Tom says that

Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

I'm interested by the world "proven" here. Rowbothom makes this claim and says it is backed up by what he saw but that is all. Apparently this is enough proof for Tom which is strange given the levels of proof he demands for anything which doesn't fit in with his world view. Which brings me on to Rowbothom's claims about perspective:

In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground
From this and other examples he concludes that:

upon a plane or horizontal surface the lowest parts of bodies receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

The only evidence Rowbothom provides for any of this is him saying that is what he saw. So my rebuttal is "No they don't".

The lowest parts of "bodies receding from a given point of observation" do NOT disappear before the highest parts IF the two objects are on a plane. Assuming no refraction or other atmospheric conditions the entire object should be visible no matter how far away it gets.
The whole object is just less clear as it recedes and on the sea if the hull and sea are similar in colour they may be hard to distinguish. All optical zoom will do is make things bigger and make them easier to distinguish again. The way to demonstrate this is to think about how we see things at all. Light bounces off objects and in to our eyes. So long as there is clear line of sight between me and all of an object then I will be able to see all of it which, on a flat plane, there should always be. The only limiting factor would be atmospheric conditions. Here is a diagram showing how the light travels from the bottom of a distant person and the top of the person into my eye:

So I should be able to see the whole person, just less clearly as the person gets further away. If you think about it, the closer the person is the larger the angle between the top and bottom lines and thus the bigger the image formed on my retina. Other than the size I perceive something, perspective is NOT a factor here. If photons can physically travel from both the bottom and the top of the object then I see the whole object.

If I was on a curve though then I would see less of the object because the curve in between me and the object and physically blocks the photons from the bottom, so in this diagram I only see the person's head:

If the person was closer there would be less of a curve between us and I would see more of them
When considering how seriously to take Rowbothom's claims about perspective, it's worth noting he also wrote:

During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with "explanations," often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre, of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body the light on the other side.

He also believed the moon to emit its own light and that light to be cold (Hint: Light is made up of photons. Photons have energy. Heat is also a type of energy. If you think you have discovered cold light then another Nobel prize awaits).

I have yet to understand why Rowbotham's claims are given such credence by some on here.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >