Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Because he was an Astrophysicist (among other things), and that requires he studied the sky...a lot. Firmament has many interpretations, but it’s largely meant in the context of sky. So it was his life’s work to observe and study the sky and space, so it is a fitting passage for his life’s work. When you go and place suspicion upon it and start assuming possible nefarious narratives for its meaning, you’re now speculating and forming patterns that likely are not there. All you can really do with that tombstone is speculate, so it’s not really evidence, it’s just a waste of time.
I think it’s important to recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, one is tangible and the other is assumed. I don’t know about you, but I would personally much rather follow tangible evidence over speculative conjectures. One I can be certain of and reach definite objective conclusions with, the other I can only form bias opinions with.
Flat Earth is full of little bread crumbs like these, that are fun to chase...but they don’t really mean anything, and if you’re not careful, you can fall into the trap they’re really leading you towards. Stick to the science I say, these kinds of speculations are just bread crumbs used to con people and rob them of their better reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, we have taken pictures now, it is pretty darn set in stone at this point. You're quite deluded if you actually believe the world can operate as it does, with the technology we have and the industries that exist, if we do not actually know the true shape and scale of our planet. It's fine to question what you're told, perfectly logical in fact, but if you're wrong...no amount of being "woke" is going to change that and people are not just going to roll over and accept empty, ignorant, incredulous claims...from individuals, who clearly have zero experience or actual expertise, with contributing to society in science, math, navigation, research and development.
You use a computer likely every day...do you honestly think the people who made that possible for you, down to the silicone in the microchips, to the binary code that runs the software, to the wifi that travels on the electro magnetic spectrum, and connects you to a world wide global network, do you honestly believe they could achieve all that, but they couldn't figure out what shape our planet is? Wake up...somebody has filled the gaps in your knowledge with some real bullshit, using your growing paranoia and lack of experience against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, that experiment is an example of an inconclusive experiment, it does not verify or falsify either model, it is inconclusive. So when Flat Earth uses it as evidence, they are doing so out of bias, completely ignoring the globe model and all the science that comes with it...like gravity, which is the biggest factor for why this experiment is inconclusive. A bubble level uses buoyancy to work, which is directly caused by gravity. That bubble is leveling to center of gravity at all times, which will shift as you travel along the surface of Earth, following center of gravity...which means it will read level the entire flight thanks to gravity.
So if Earth is a sphere with gravity, the bubble will read level. If the Earth is flat without gravity, it will still read level....so this experiment proves nothing, it is inconclusive. Flat Earth doesn't care though, ignorance is their bread and butter, they just ignore the heliocentric science (even though it's 100% verified science) and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Denial is not an argument, it's just good ol' fashion ignorance.
1
-
1
-
Yes, the Bedford Level experiment has been repeated many times now. Upon every published recreation, it’s found in favour of a Globe. Here’s a very recent recreation, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The reason Rowbotham (Parallax) came back with a flat result, is because he was ignoring variables (like atmospheric refraction) and he conducted a very rushed experiment that only made one observation and only collected one data set. He also did the wrong math, so his experiment was just poorly done. Upon all peer review of his work, it’s found that he didn’t do enough to render a conclusive result, so his work is inconclusive. It’s now a perfect example of how a good experiment done poorly, can lead you to a false conclusion if you’re not careful. He only went as far as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. But, that’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lies.
1
-
It actually has been done many times now, they just don't listen. Here's a few that I am aware of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=390s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=480s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=9s
These YouTubers actually dedicate their channels to this mess, debunking each claim with actual experimentation. They're pretty thorough, so they're good to check out and keep on deck if you're gonna chat with these nut jobs. Cause trouble is channels like these are just not easy to find online, so people assume nobody is out there doing these sorts of experiments....but they are. That being said, I agree, we should keep repeating these experiments, this sort of things should be common knowledge.
When it comes to Flat Earthers though, we're not dealing with rational people here...we're dealing with paranoia, ego, and confirmation bias...at least for the true believers, the rest are just trolls and con men who spend their time fooling these people...for some fuckin reason I have no idea why. For the true believers, we're dealing with a mob mentality that is done trusting science, their better reasoning robbed from them by their fear and complete distrust of authority. You can show them experiments like this, but it won't put out that fire, it'll likely just stoke it. They're just not listening anymore...pretty ironic from a group of people who claim to be more "open minded".
1
-
1
-
So we shouldn’t call out obvious bullshit when we see it? Do you think Flat Earth is somehow free from analysis and skepticism? Why can’t we question them, just as thoroughly as they question others? 🤷♂️
It’s fine to be skeptical, but when you’re just a contrarian for the sake of being different, then you’re not thinking rationally or objectively anymore, you’re just a hipster of misinformation. We are just being skeptical as well…skeptical of strangers online, with no background in science, pretending they’re the real experts, while pushing misinformation, that’s easily falsified with just a base understanding of physics and geometry.
You make claims on a public forum…you should expect to be checked for it. Flat Earth does not get a free pass from peer review. It’s unfortunate that ridicule occurs, but it’s human nature, so it’s gonna happen…and it happens from both sides, not just the globe proponents. Get a thicker skin I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but many of the photos were taken during the Apollo missions (and even earlier), decades before CGI was really possible or viable for such imagery. Long before photoshop any way. I remember these images, long before the internet or computers were largely used. So how exactly did they fake these photos? Furthermore, what you really have here is just an empty claim, a conclusion reached from speculation. If you really were a professor as you claim, I’m surprised you’d form such a flimsy conclusion from speculations alone. It’s logical to infer the possibility of fakery, but no conclusion can really be drawn here, only speculated upon. That being said, I’d agree, unless I took the picture myself, I can’t really use it for argument either, so it’s fair not to accept photos as evidence. I’m fine with that, in this case at least.
Point is though, no, NASA does not claim every image they’ve produced is CGI. So you’re not off to a good start if you’re claiming they do. That is a lie...so why should anyone engage in conversation with anyone so willing to lie or twist facts? If you feel it’s not a lie though, feel free to educate me with a citation where NASA made that claim.
I don’t mind sharing and discussing evidence, but I’m not really interested in a debate where I’m going to be lied too constantly, just to win an argument. We have every reason to question Flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t. It’s not delusional at all to be skeptical about a potential online hoax.
On that note, I’ll share some information on your points, I don’t mind.
1. Well, first of all, 8 inches per mile squared is not the accurate math to use in long distance observations. It is missing important variables required to make an accurate calculation here, things like height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. So if that’s the math you’ve been using, then that’s your first problem. Here’s where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. Feel free to check the math here, you’ll find it’s far more accurate, than a basic parabola equation.
As for the evidence you’re looking for, here you go http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a very in-depth recreation of the infamous Bedford Level experiment, only this time conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. The conclusion is quite conclusive, the surface of that lake is curving and at the rate it should be given Earth’s scale. But feel free to analyze it closer if you’d like.
2. No, Michelson and Morley’s experiment was inconclusive. Upon all peer review, that has continued to be its conclusion, even Michelson and Morley agreed to this. What this means is, it neither verifies nor falsifies Aether, or its null hypothesis of a stationary Earth. So no, it did not prove the Earth is stationary, it is inconclusive, so anyone using this experiment to support any definite conclusion, is doing so out of pure bias.
What it did mean however, was that there was a possibility that Aether did not exist. Which was a problem at the time, because they were very certain it did exist...this experiment was supposed to find it, and everyone within physics at the time expected it would. They weren’t as concerned with the null hypothesis of a stationary Earth, because mountains of evidence already existed verifying that Earth rotation did exist. Foucault pendulum experiments, the gyro compass, observations of Coriolis effect, not to mention the plethora of observations already amassed from astronomy records, verifying the motions of our solar system, there just was no evidence suggesting Earth was not rotating, meanwhile there was tons in support of it. Today we have even more, with things like ring laser interferometers, used to measure Earth’s rotation.
So here’s how science looked at it, there was no evidence yet for the Aether and all other attempts to find it continued to find nothing, either failing completely or rendering an inconclusive result. Meanwhile, Earth rotation was being confirmed more and more, with tons of verified evidence...so you see a little better now why science would continue to support Earth rotation, while abandoning the concept of Aether?
So it’s another lie, saying Michelson Morley confirmed a stationary Earth, truth is it’s inconclusive. But feel free to provide me with any evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I’ll now share some simple experiments verifying Earth rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - Ring laser interferometer measuring Earth rotation through the Sagnac effect.
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - Foucault pendulum experiment repeated in a stairwell, refined a bit to calculate latitude.
https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - Simple Coriolis experiment, testing the swirling water of each hemisphere.
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force by latitude.
3. Well...no, the heliocentric model was already pretty well established, special relativity physics just helped solve of few of the issues presented by the missing Aether (among other things). It filled in some blanks and solved a few problems, that’s about it. It helped refine gravity physics, to which much of Newtonian physics couldn’t account for. But proof? I mean, just look at any nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb. Both use this equation and understanding, to help understand, calculate and create the massive energy outputs of both. It’s just an equation to calculate how much energy you can get from a mass and vice versa...and it’s been pretty useful for that purpose, history proves that, current nuclear fission and fusion technology proves that.
But, I’m not a physicist, so I don’t pretend to know every facet of special or general relativity, just a baseline understanding really. But regardless, even if it could be falsified, does it change the observations made for a spherical Earth? There’s so much nuance in higher physics like that, that you could probably argue against these equations and maybe even falsify them...but does that really change the fact that I can travel to the South hemisphere, and observe the second rotation of stars around Sigma Octantis, for myself? Which I have done btw. Does it change the fact that I can put the current system of navigation to the test, by using it to plot my own navigation courses? Should we just throw the baby out with the bath water, because of some higher level physics that we’re aware is not completely worked out yet, even if it could be proven false? No...I’m not about to do that. Science is a process, it’s been wrong many times...but the geometry of the Earth, is an applied science today...it’s not really up for debate any longer.
You think GR is false and falsifiable, by all means, give it your best shot. But good luck with that, because every attempt so far, has just verified it further.
Anyway, that’s my two cents for now. Feel free to respond if you’d like. I don’t have all the time in the world for a full on debate, but I’ll try and respond when I can, if you have anything you’d like to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Every mechanical gyroscope used on aircraft have a mechanism included on the gimbles known as pendulous vanes, that are there for this very reason, among others. Basically, they’re designed to correct any drift in the gyroscope, due to any reason, be it gyroscopic precession, extreme maneuvering, or Earth curvature. Look them up sometime…or go ahead and ask a pilot, every pilot is trained on the equipment they operate, and nothing more important than the horizon indicator, so very good chance they’d remember the pendulous vanes and their function.
Again, you’re reaching false conclusions from a lack of knowledge. Learn more about what you’re arguing…this is exactly how Flat Earth cons people, by exploiting the gaps in their knowledge.
1
-
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 Or maybe I’ve worked it out on my own, through my own observations and experiments, and now know exactly why these conclusions were reached. You think we’re just blind followers, but you really have no idea…it’s just something you need to tell yourself, so you never have to consider the possibility that you fell for an online con.
I’ll listen to anyone’s presentation of evidence, but I’m not just going to blindly agree with it. Science is about falsification, if your theory was accurate, then I wouldn’t be able to falsify it…but Flat Earth is actually pretty easy to refute, hence why I don’t subscribe too it. It’s really that simple. If you couldn’t…well, then that’s a you problem.
Feel free to share more information on your position, but yes, don’t expect me to agree with any of it out of the gate. Unless it can’t be refuted upon reviewing, then I have no reason to conclude it’s accurate.
1
-
1
-
Yes, it is a theory, but it's not as simple as most seem to think it is. A theory in science is very different from the general use of the word theory. Theory in the regular sense means a best guess based on prior evidence, so not proven yet. But in science Hypothesis takes on this role and a Theory in science becomes the highest form for explaining a phenomenon, it's what hypothesis graduates into after it's been proven, not before. Nothing in science graduates to the level of a theory until it is basically proven science, with multiple forms of evidence backing it. Nothing is beyond a theory in science when it comes to explanations for how and why something works the way it does at the mechanical level.
Not to be confused with Laws of science, which only describe WHAT is happening, they do not further explain HOW or WHY that something works the way it does. Because there is also the Law of gravity, which just describes the motion we observe from gravity, the downward acceleration towards the surface, but this Law does not describe HOW it is happening, it just records WHAT is happening. To describe HOW it works, we have the scientific theory of gravity to explain that part of things.
Also not to be confused with Facts, which also do not explain how something works, they just describe something that's undeniably true about something. Facts make up both Laws and Theories, but Facts by themselves are not what we use to explain things in greater detail, by themselves they do not explain HOW something is the way it is, that's what theories are for.
So the word 'theory' in science is not as simple as people like to think. When people use the argument "it's still just a theory", all you're really doing is displaying your scientific illiteracy....which pretty much forfeits that person from any conversation of science immediately after saying it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GT_Void Alright, I'll pick one since you're to much of a coward. At 41 minutes of your doc, the presenter brings up an Encyclopedia entry from a 1958 edition. Reading an entry from the book it reads as fallows "These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80°S, longitude 90°E". Then he makes a claim that this is talking about the "dome firmament". So he reads the word "dome" and immediately assumes this must mean "the dome firmament". Boy...didn't realize the dome was only 13,000 feet high...the highest elevation points in Antarctica go higher then that, shouldn't this dome firmament go MUCH higher, if planes are flying under it? Gee, I wonder if they could have meant anything else by word "dome"? Upon a quick search, yup, it's very likely they did. Ever heard of an ice dome before? They're a form of glacier that are pretty common all over Antarctica, here's a map of some of the larger ones. https://static.sphaericaest.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/image-131-1024x701.png Wow...lotta domes around Antarctica...I wonder which one is the firmament?
Alright, so let's see if we can find more info. Here's an entry found in a book titled 'Antarctica in the International Geophysical Year, Issue 1'.https://books.google.co.id/books?id=j44Kw31FSboC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 15 in the section on Antarctica Geography you'll find this quote "The latter is believed to be a massive Precambrian shield superimposed by a great dome of snow and ice, and toward its center reaching in excess of 13,000 feet elevation". They're describing a glacier ice dome in this article...which are very common in Antarctica, as stated earlier.
So the researcher in your doc series really has nothing to verify, that what is being discussed is the "dome firmament", but he has no problem saying it is anyway...even though it states that this thing is only a measly 13,000 feet high. If he found the wall of this firmament...wouldn't he call it a wall, not a dome? And again, why is it only 13,000 feet high? What exactly gives him ANY INDICATION, that what he's reading is a discovery of the "firmament"?
No, I think he's applying his bias here and just making an assumption, because it says a word that he can spin into some bullshit. He just pulled a single word from a book and spun his own bias narrative upon it....selling you a claim that they were talking about the "dome firmament". They were not, they were likely talking about ice dome glaciers found all over Antarctica...that is far more likely, since the elevation of many of these ice glacier domes, are roughly around the elevation stated in the Encyclepidia. So he's being bias...this is just classic cherry picking, meaning it's confirmation bias, nothing more.
So that's one down, how much you wanna bet if I tackled every claim made one at a time, I'd be able to spot the bullshit in each claim? I know I would be able too....I've done it many times...it's all bullshit, that's why I'm no afraid to you have you pick a point yourself, it's ALL BULLSHIT....so pretty easy to dismantle if you really take the time.
I've watched your fucking bullshit documentaries bud....they're nothing but empty speculations, quotes taken out of context and respun with a bias narrative, misunderstood physics, bad math and paranoid delusion. They are 3 hours long, to impress idiots like you....with what's known as GISH GALLOP. Which is a deceptive debate tactic, where you bury your opponent in an onslaught of weak arguments, that one at a time can't stand on their own, but together they seem more impressive. It's designed to overwhelm your ability to counter the bullshit being spewed....and sadly, it works.
Now go ahead, pick another point...I don't mind at all.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 I just don't like bullshit. It's fine to question things...but why lie to yourself and others in the process? Why cherry pick information and spin bias upon it and reach conclusions from pure speculations and bias conjectures? The fact is, that entire documentary G.T. shared is nothing but gish gallop and bias. It's deceptive and bias, cherry picking only the information that supports their conclusion and ignoring all the other details that directly refute it....and it's incredible that I have to sit people down and tell them this. You should NEVER form full opinions around speculations....and that's all this documentary does, from start to finish, it speculates, endlessly.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to keep people honest, objective and reasonable. Bias is real, we all have it...it can and will lead you to false conclusions if you allow it. I try my very best not to form opinions around pure speculations and I do everything I can to keep bias in check....that's how you get to the REAL truth of things. I do that, by reconizing the difference between speculation and actual evidence. I do that by recognizing that I have bias, identifying what mine is, and then keeping it in check when evidence is presented to me....I wish everybody else did the same, but sadly, I don't see that happening...I see people chasing it, like moths to a flame.
From what I've seen, Earth is not flat...the evidence for the Globe is overwhelming. People would know that, if they could just step away from their bias long enough...to actually LOOK at that evidence and understand it.
I don't doubt there are very corrupt and evil people out there, pulling the strings for their own agendas...trust me, I get why everybodies on edge, but that doesn't mean we just lose our heads....that's very likely what they want us to do, lose our minds and confuse us, which divides us further and gets us fighting amongst ourselves. But, they can't hide the natural world from us, anyone can put reality to the test any time they want too, it's right outside every single day...you can learn the physics and discover the science on your own, at any time, the elites can't take that from you. I have done that, I know for a fact Earth is not flat, it doesn't take much effort to realize that either. So I'm challenging anyone who claims that it is, both to challenge myself to see if I might have missed something AND to challenge what I feel is misinformation. Misinformation is easier to spread then ever before thanks to social media, I'm just doing what I can to stem that flow, because NOTHING should just fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged.
Just wish I met more rational people...who could keep their head on their shoulders, and recognize the difference between speculation and actual evidence. But I don't find a lot those...and that is just scary.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 What you might as well have just said is "ignore everything else and agree with me"...sorry Karyn, but I will not do that. Religion is your bias, it keeps you from paying attention. All I care about is physical evidence, because reality is not magic, it can be measured, observed, studied and understood. That proof is all around you. You're not talking to me through a bible, you're talking to me on a computer...mankind didn't invent this technology, by keeping their nose in a bible...they did it by studying the natural world and figuring out how it works. We can absolutely do the same for the true shape of the Earth...and we have, pilots and sailors are not using a flat model of Earth to navigate with, that's for a good reason. So physical evidence is all that matters to me, leave your book of superstitions at the door please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hakan8997 That's fine
Håkan, it's great that you'd rather have solid intel rather than maybes, but why are you ignoring the several times they have pointed out a different flight, from Australia to South America, that does fly direct as well, that on the Gleason would fly over Canada to make the shortest route...but it doesn't fly that way in reality. There are also flights from Australia to South Africa direct, that I know people have flown, here's a guy who has tons of info on these flights...he's a commercial pilot from Australia. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 Here's one such example of a flight he breaks down and explains better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOY2BSfdbc8&t=514s So how does the Gleason map account for some of the Southern hemisphere flights that don't match with what is flown in reality? Why do Flat Earthers focus so much time on the North...and completely ignore the South? You'll find a lot of flights down there, that don't make much sense on a Flat Earth, so I do find it very conveniant that Flat Earthers only focus on the flights that maybe kind of sort of fit their model better...while ignoring the ones that COMPLETELY make no sense on a Flat Earth.
There could be a lot of reasons why that flight is reverted closer to Sweden, the Globe still accounts for it, it's not like it's flying WAY of course now is it. But there are TONS of flights in the South, that would fly off course immensely, if the Earth were flat...so why do Flat Earthers ignore these flights and focus on the North? Take a look at some of the flights being mentioned above to you and some of the flights being mentioned by Wolfie in the link I shared.
Jeranism and Karen B and those guys ARE being put to task just as much and we're finding them in error as well. We're concluding now that they are the true perpetuators of this scam online...feeding you the information they WANT you to see and ignoring all others.
Wolfie6020, Critical Think, Sly Sparkane, Blue Marble Science, Bob the Science Guy, Greater Sapien, Soundly, Reds Rhetoric and many others, those are the true Globe Earth channels looking at the bigger claims and challenging them. People like Jeranism, Rob Skiba, Eric Dubay, Karen B, Bob Knodel, Mark Sargent, Nathan Oakley, and many others, THESE are the people that are being checked by the ones I just mentioned above...they ARE being put to task and they are STILL being caught out in error.
It's great your name dropping the bigger proponents of Flat Earth, but are you aware of any of the bigger Globe Earth proponents? If not, then you've being doing bias research, looking at just ONE side of the argument. Just take a look at some of the work that has been done by the true Globe Earth proponents sometime...and THEN you'll have both sides of things in a little clearer focus.
1
-
@hakan8997 Likewise, explain the Southern flights to me please. You've received several comments now explaining that flight and it has been noted. My question is why focus on one flight, while several others don't support your claims at all? That's what seems convenient to me.
Yes, I didn't drop Scimandan for a good reason, he's more a commentator and not really a dedicated researcher, his work is mostly for entertainment. He's the largest channel for that reason, because most people use this platform for entertainment...not education. Scimandan is great and all, but I agree, he's not the best source for information pertaining to the Globe side of the argument. Wolfie is a pilot...so I don't get why you hand wave him aside so quickly. Explain to me why you don't believe his work is valid. Maybe I'll listen, if rather then laughing you gave me a reason to agree with you. Soundly is the same, show me where he has fudged things, he's done some really impressive work, but if you have spotted some flaws then by all means, I'm all ears. Go right ahead, I don't mind taking a look.
Do YOU? Cause it just always seems like Flat Earthers would rather laugh and make empty claims and ignore any information that refutes them, rather then give us ANY reason to see their side of things, past their empty claims they will repeat over and over again, even after they've been refuted. So please, point me towards the reasons why you don't trust Wolfie or Soundly. Have you looked at Sly Sparkanes work yet? He's another huge one that has done some pretty impressive work as well, what about his work? Feel free, I don't mind taking a look at any information you have that might help me see why you distrust them.
Ask me about pretty much any Flat Earth researcher, and I will SHOW YOU exactly why I don't trust them. I will find the videos I have watched of theirs and I will point out their errors to you and I will explain to you where they go wrong. I don't just watch a little bit of their videos and then laugh and shrug it off, I pay attention and I hear them out. It is harder now to take them seriously, but I prefer to be objective, so I will still. I always find a flaw in their work, and I can share those flaws with you, so just ask which one you'd like me to get into with you and I'll let you know if I've looked at their work yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, it has been scientifically verified. We've measured Earths rotation now in several different ways, starting with the Foucault pendulum experiment, then later with gyro compasses, now today we do it with large area Sagnac interferometers (also known as ring laser gyros). The Earth is measured to rotate at a steady rate of 15 degrees every hour, which is roughly 1000 mph linear speed, to cover a 24,000 mile circumference, 1 rotation every 24 hours. This is long settled science that you're arguing against...the only reason you've reached the conclusion you have currently, is because you're very ignorant to what science actually knows and you instead listened blindly to con men feed you misinformation and bullshit, and for some reason you believed them without question, over actual experts. When somebody told you there was no scientific proof of Earths rotation, I bet you just nodded your head and agreed, didn't even bother to look if that statement was true or not. It's incredible how we can live in the information age, and people are STILL this ignorant. SMH.
1
-
1