A new book on the UFO, Alien Hoax

jpc

Moderator
Staff member
Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
3,157
Reaction score
4,391
Says the single, unemployed man who spends 94% of his waking hours on the internet.
Again I am asking that you either it civil or don't respond.
Threads are getting derailed by juvenile bickering.
Can it please.
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Again I am asking that you either it civil or don't respond.
Threads are getting derailed by juvenile bickering.
Can it please.
I won't push this much further but I'm afraid that "juvenile bickering" is not the definition of incivility

If sensible anti-incivility measures were to be implemented here, I'd have no problem with it. Not least because certain posters' lips would bleed :)
 

Wolf

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2023
Messages
8,504
Reaction score
7,677
It's not called a 'jimmy' for nothing!!

Final word.:cool:
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
It's not called a 'jimmy' for nothing!!

Final word.:cool:
Whatever the f*ck that means..

Hopefully you'll be reduced to trying to pester me with emojis soon pal 👍

Screenshot_20250812_193621.jpg
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Run along there, silly little drunkard.
Didn't @jpc just warn you about those type of posts? I think he did

Plus, have you written a single on-topic post in this thread? I don't think so
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
I'm afraid the moderation here is destroying the site.. Any decent site would have permanently banned Woof years ago
 

BIG FAT HOOR

Active member
New
Joined
Jul 9, 2025
Messages
76
Reaction score
102
I don't believe any other life exists anywhere in the Universe, and the reason why has taken this guy many hundreds of pages to explain!
OUR MILKY WAY IS VAST .
my brain can cope with many complex ideas and events and concepts just as yourself -you are I find a highly intelligent sincere man and your curiosity is a marker in great people -so we are today discussing life elsewhere .
your sincerity is your difficulty when dealing with this .
my god IS THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT especially the conscioness .
there fore I have no problem understanding that our milky way is vast and I have spent many hours with high powered telescopes seeing layer upon layer of stars with their hundreds of planets each and I am truly awestruck by the enormity of it all.
while I may consider my self intelligent --I am unable to compute to understand the vastness of our galaxy which is only one of trillions of galaxy's .
it is terrifying that we would come across a civilisation 3 million years or 10 million years of evolution beyond our own.
we would be physically and mentally defenceless --they could take what they wish and there are planets many thousands of times bigger than earth .
and this is where your sincerity enters and causes a diffculty --if you belive the christian theology then we are a creation of the only one true god .
when the spaceships land and our first question is who is your god and we are told a tale handed down for 7 million years or so --then we/you have a problem .
if we are lucky they wont eat us or enslave us or ride us as we would do to them and have done to millions over the centuries .
hopefully god will be within them also --he must be.
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
there fore I have no problem understanding that our milky way is vast and I have spent many hours with high powered telescopes seeing layer upon layer of stars with their hundreds of planets each and I am truly awestruck by the enormity of it all.
Differentiate between what you actually see in your telescope when observing planets, and the stories you are told about the planets. You see moving lights in the sky, you do not see balls orbiting other balls. You do not see hundreds of planets. You can see six planets at most: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. Bring your telescopes down to the coast and aim them out at the ships across the sea and you will observe them on a level sea surface far beyond the alleged globe earth curve. If you have the time and interest, read this thread: https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-flat-earth-thread.242/

Windmills.gif


and this is where your sincerity enters and causes a diffculty --if you belive the christian theology then we are a creation of the only one true god .
If you believe in Christian theology you will understand that earth is not a ball in a space vacuum. You will not find trillions of galaxies or any description of earth as a ball in the Bible. The Big Bang did not create earth and man, God did. There will be no alien spaceships. The ball earth in space cosmology is a Satanic inversion magic trick.
 

BIG FAT HOOR

Active member
New
Joined
Jul 9, 2025
Messages
76
Reaction score
102
Differentiate between what you actually see in your telescope when observing planets, and the stories you are told about the planets. You see moving lights in the sky, you do not see balls orbiting other balls. You do not see hundreds of planets. You can see six planets at most: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. Bring your telescopes down to the coast and aim them out at the ships across the sea and you will observe them on a level sea surface far beyond the alleged globe earth curve. If you have the time and interest, read this thread: https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-flat-earth-thread.242/

View attachment 7978


If you believe in Christian theology you will understand that earth is not a ball in a space vacuum. You will not find trillions of galaxies or any description of earth as a ball in the Bible. The Big Bang did not create earth and man, God did. There will be no alien spaceships. The ball earth in space cosmology is a Satanic inversion magic trick.
I do not believe in a mad big bang .
the matter of the entire universe in an atom which explodes into millions of galaxy's .
who made the atom who made the bang who made the universe .
all daft stuff .
I have already stated I believe god/consciousness is the power behind all .
and god is within us all regardless of religion or colour or wealth in the same amount each .
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Differentiate between what you actually see in your telescope when observing planets, and the stories you are told about the planets.
What stories? R u talking about astrology? 🤔

You see moving lights in the sky, you do not see balls orbiting other balls.
You don't see this -

images


The "moving lights in the sky" are the planets in our solar system orbiting the Sun reflecting sunlight. They move (in a straight line) due to inertia, which is just as well for them because otherwise they would fall into the Sun. Instead what we observe is an orbit, a combination of inertia and (the Sun's) gravity

You do not see hundreds of planets.
I don't think BFH was talking about the planets of our solar system

We have discovered thousands of exoplanets (but not hundreds orbiting any one star system)

You can see six planets at most: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus.
You forgot Neptune (which might disappoint @Neptune), the real Blue Planet :) (fast forward to the end) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-P031VlbU

Bring your telescopes down to the coast and aim them out at the ships across the sea and you will observe them on a level sea surface far beyond the alleged globe earth curve. If you have the time and interest, read this thread: https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-flat-earth-thread.242/

View attachment 7978
What's that, a drone with a telescopic lens?

Stop embarrassing yourself

If you believe in Christian theology you will understand that earth is not a ball in a space vacuum.
You don't believe in Christian theology as you claim not to be a Christian

You will not find trillions of galaxies or any description of earth as a ball in the Bible.
Galaxies are a relatively modern discovery, therefore the humans who wrote the Bible wouldn't have been aware of their existence. Besides, a book of tales of the supernatural hasn't any relevance to science or the natural world anyway

The Big Bang did not create earth and man,
Correct. The Earth and humans (their original existence separated by billions of years) both came after the Big Bang, as did the building blocks for same (remember you're made of stardust)

God did. There will be no alien spaceships. The ball earth in space cosmology is a Satanic inversion magic trick.
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
I do not believe in a mad big bang .
the matter of the entire universe in an atom which explodes into millions of galaxy's .
who made the atom who made the bang who made the universe .
all daft stuff .
I have already stated I believe god/consciousness is the power behind all .
and god is within us all regardless of religion or colour or wealth in the same amount each .
Did you know that the 'Father of the Big Bang' was a Catholic priest called Georges Lemaître?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6ndOAOEeE

He spoke of an initial state of the universe being a "primeval atom"

The Big Bang theory is quite popular with some theists (as it smacks of creation) but alas they all lie about it. Specifically that's it's a theory of something from nothing (which it isn't) so that they can insert their God. Lies swallowed whole by gullible dupes like Tiger who've never read a book on science
 

willows68

Well-known member
New
Joined
Jun 25, 2024
Messages
788
Reaction score
1,081
Did you know that the 'Father of the Big Bang' was a Catholic priest called Georges Lemaître?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6ndOAOEeE

He spoke of an initial state of the universe being a "primeval atom"

The Big Bang theory is quite popular with some theists (as it smacks of creation) but alas they all lie about it. Specifically that's it's a theory of something from nothing (which it isn't) so that they can insert their God. Lies swallowed whole by gullible dupes like Tiger who've never read a book on science

Welcome back😇
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
What stories? R u talking about astrology? 🤔
These kinds of stories: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/on-neptune-its-raining-diamonds

You don't see this -

images
I never claimed we see that dumb cartoon straw man.

The "moving lights in the sky" are the planets in our solar system orbiting the Sun reflecting sunlight. They move (in a straight line) due to inertia, which is just as well for them because otherwise they would fall into the Sun. Instead what we observe is an orbit, a combination of inertia and (the Sun's) gravity
More of those stories I was referring to. You don't observe any planet orbiting the sun.

I don't think BFH was talking about the planets of our solar system
I know he wasn't, but he believes those exoplanets are there even though he doesn't see them through his telescopes, which is the point I was making.

We have discovered thousands of exoplanets (but not hundreds orbiting any one star system)
"We" LOL. You didn't do shit. Do you even know how they "discover" those exoplanets? They don't actually see them through telescopes, they infer their existence based on other bullshit assumptions about the stars. More stories.

You forgot Neptune (which might disappoint @Neptune), the real Blue Planet :) (fast forward to the end) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-P031VlbU

I was thinking of planets visible to the naked eye which is was why I mistakenly didn't include Neptune. Here's Neptune from a telescope in your video - can you see any raining diamonds?

neptune.png


What's that, a drone with a telescopic lens?
It's a telescopic camera - the Nikon P900 - on a tripod at sea level. Gif is from this video (29:02):


View: https://youtu.be/R9JPxYOlYoQ?si=tTkiNNMjTcq3NKw0&t=1742
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Huh? So, that's a hypothesis that the conditions might be right for diamonds to form deep below the surface of the planet, which would then sink ("rain") creating a diamond outer core. What's the problem, exactly?

I never claimed we see that dumb cartoon straw man.
It's a depiction. Is there anything that you fundamentally disagree with according to the flat-earth model(s)?

More of those stories I was referring to. You don't observe any planet orbiting the sun.
It wasn't a story, I was simply stating the basics of planetary motion, not least because you seemed to acknowledge that the "lights in the sky" do, indeed, move

I made reference of course to Newton's first law of motion (inertia) and Einstein's general relativity (gravity), I spared you Kepler :)

Do you have any explanation for why the planets move as they do?

In particular, Newton's first law of motion states that an object (not at rest) will move at a constant velocity in the same direction unless acted upon by a (net) force. So, if the planets aren't orbiting the Sun, why haven't they wandered off into space never to be seen by us again (as the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS will)?

I know he wasn't, but he believes those exoplanets are there even though he doesn't see them through his telescopes, which is the point I was making.
Fairy nuff

"We" LOL. You didn't do shit. Do you even know how they "discover" those exoplanets? They don't actually see them through telescopes, they infer their existence based on other bullshit assumptions about the stars. More stories.
The two (indirect) methods that I'm aware of are to observe a dimming of a star as the planet passes in front of it and to observe the star wobble caused by the gravitational effect of the planet

I was thinking of planets visible to the naked eye which is was why I mistakenly didn't include Neptune. Here's Neptune from a telescope in your video - can you see any raining diamonds?

View attachment 7983
Is that a serious question?

No, and I can't see diamonds naturally form on planet Earth either, despite being billions of miles closer

It's a telescopic camera - the Nikon P900 - on a tripod at sea level. Gif is from this video (29:02):


View: https://youtu.be/R9JPxYOlYoQ?si=tTkiNNMjTcq3NKw0&t=1742

Or a flat-earther with too much time on their hands
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
Huh? So, that's a hypothesis that the conditions might be right for diamonds to form deep below the surface of the planet, which would then sink ("rain") creating a diamond outer core. What's the problem, exactly?
No problem, it's just an example of bullshit stories about planets.

It's a depiction. Is there anything that you fundamentally disagree with according to the flat-earth model(s)?
Your cartoon straw man showed earth as a disc, with a dome, floating in space. I don't claim earth is a disc, I don't claim there is a dome, and I don't believe in space. So it's not a depiction of anything I claim, which is simply that the surface of earth is flat (because that is how it is observed, measured and practically used), and that earth is not a ball in a space vacuum.

It wasn't a story, I was simply stating the basics of planetary motion, not least because you seemed to acknowledge that the "lights in the sky" do, indeed, move
I was just pointing out that your claim of planets orbiting the sun is not observed, it's a story, it's something you must believe in.

Do you have any explanation for why the planets move as they do?
No.

In particular, Newton's first law of motion states that an object (not at rest) will move at a constant velocity in the same direction unless acted upon by a (net) force. So, if the planets aren't orbiting the Sun, why haven't they wandered off into space never to be seen by us again (as the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS will)?
Whether or not planets are actually objects is unknown. Applying Newton's first law to them assumes they are, but the planets may not even be subject to the law.

Is that a serious question?
It was serious - again, I'm just pointing out that my example of a space story (diamonds raining on Neptune) is not what is actually observed.
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
No problem, it's just an example of bullshit stories about planets.
Your definition of hypothesis is bullshit?

Furthermore, you have not in any way refuted the hypothesis (you don't do science)

Your cartoon straw man showed earth as a disc, with a dome, floating in space. I don't claim earth is a disc, I don't claim there is a dome, and I don't believe in space.
What about the ice wall, do you believe in that?

So it's not a depiction of anything I claim, which is simply that the surface of earth is flat (because that is how it is observed, measured and practically used),
Only over shorter distances

and that earth is not a ball in a space vacuum.
The Earth is a planet orbiting the Sun (a star) and spherical in shape like all the others

I was just pointing out that your claim of planets orbiting the sun is not observed,
Of course it is

it's a story, it's something you must believe in.
The story here is your conspiracy theory

Whether or not planets are actually objects is unknown. Applying Newton's first law to them assumes they are, but the planets may not even be subject to the law.
Yeah, you probably should have left it at "No"

It was serious - again, I'm just pointing out that my example of a space story (diamonds raining on Neptune) is not what is actually observed.
If you were actually asking me can I see diamond rain in that image then I'm afraid I'm going to have downgrade your question to - stupid

Also, I can't help but get the feeling that you're thinking of "rain" based on your (Earthly) experience, i.e. water falling from clouds in the sky separated from a solid (or liquid) surface

Neptune (Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter) are gas planets (no solid surface) and what is hypothesised is happening below the surface of Neptune and certainly not visible even if up close and personal
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
Your definition of hypothesis is bullshit?

Furthermore, you have not in any way refuted the hypothesis (you don't do science)
Raining diamonds is a bullshit story, it is not a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis requires the observation of a natural phenomenon, something happening in nature, not on Neptune where we cannot go. A hypothesis also requires an independent variable and a dependent variable (the natural phenomenon or effect), and an experiment in which the independent variable is manipulated to verify whether or not it causes the effect. "Raining diamonds on Neptune" does not have any of this.

The story here is your conspiracy theory
Here's more space stories for you. Do you believe all this bollocks?


Alcohol on a disc in space!
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Raining diamonds is a bullshit story, it is not a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis requires the observation of a natural phenomenon, something happening in nature, not on Neptune where we cannot go. A hypothesis also requires an independent variable and a dependent variable (the natural phenomenon or effect), and an experiment in which the independent variable is manipulated to verify whether or not it causes the effect. "Raining diamonds on Neptune" does not have any of this.
You don't know anything about this, you are a (off-the-charts) science denier, pathological conspiracy theorist and profound victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is why you are completely unfazed by your absolute lack of curiosity, knowledge or understanding of anything to do with the real world

Here's more space stories for you. Do you believe all this bollocks?


Alcohol on a disc in space!
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
You don't know anything about this, you are a (off-the-charts) science denier, pathological conspiracy theorist and profound victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is why you are completely unfazed by your absolute lack of curiosity, knowledge or understanding of anything to do with the real world
@Hermit has just facepalmed the post above

Feel free to deny anything I said:

"I'm not a science denier because.."
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist because.."
"I'm not a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger because.."
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Raining diamonds is a bullshit story, it is not a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis requires the observation of a natural phenomenon, something happening in nature, not on Neptune where we cannot go. A hypothesis also requires an independent variable and a dependent variable (the natural phenomenon or effect), and an experiment in which the independent variable is manipulated to verify whether or not it causes the effect. "Raining diamonds on Neptune" does not have any of this.

Here's more space stories for you. Do you believe all this bollocks?


Alcohol on a disc in space!
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
Now, as promised, some Kepler for you (watch, listen, learn) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-UFr1X0prbo&t=11m45s

First thing he says, "The ancients first observed the way the planets seemed to move about in the sky and concluded that along with the earth they all went around the sun." This agrees with what I said, that planets are not observed orbiting the sun. If you have observed planets orbiting the sun then post a video.
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800

1. Description of the Scientific Method​

One of the goals of science is to come up with explanations about how the natural world (all the things we see or experience) functions. Although there are other systems for understanding and explaining the world around us (such as religion and traditional beliefs) science differs from these in that scientific explanations are based on laws of nature. Laws of nature are patterns in nature that are objective (do not depend on faith, authority, or opinion), are testable (can be demonstrated with experiments), and are consistent (the same conditions produce the same results).

The 4 Steps of the Scientific Method

To learn about the natural world, scientists use a four step procedure called the scientific method. The four steps of the scientific method are listed below. To help illustrate the scientific method, an example that an entomologist (a biologist who specializes in insects) might use is given in italics below each step.

Step 1: Observations & Questions
Observe something in the natural world and ask a question about how it works. The part of the natural world that is observed and investigated is usually the area that the scientist specializes in. An entomologist for example, would ask questions about how insects function.

“The life cycle of a fruit fly is about 30 days (at 29 degrees Celsius). How do changes in temperature affect the life cycle of a fruit fly?”

Step 2: Hypothesis
Make a hypothesis (an educated guess) which attempts to answer the question. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement.

“Decreasing the temperature of a fruit fly's environment will increase the time it takes the fruit fly to complete its life cycle.”

Step 3: Experiment
Design and carry out an experiment that is capable of testing the hypothesis. In other words, the experiment must be designed so that it will produce results that either clearly support or clearly falsify (disprove) the hypothesis. It helps to use “If-Then” predictions based on your hypothesis.

Designing a Good Experiment
The most challenging part of the scientific method is usually the third step, designing and carrying out an experiment to test the hypothesis. A well-designed experiment should include all of the following characteristics:

1. An independent variable. The independent variable is the part of the experiment that the scientist changes or manipulates to see what effect occurs.

“The temperature is the independent variable, since that is what the experiment changes to see its effect.”

2. A dependent variable. The dependent variable is the part of the experiment that changes because of the change in the independent variable. In other words, the dependent variable is the effect that occurs from changing the independent variable.

“The length of the fruit flies' life cycle is the dependent variable, since the time of development is expected to change because of the temperature.”

“Place 100 fruit flies at 18 degrees Celsius for one generation. Also place 100 fruit flies at 29 degrees Celsius for one generation. If the hypothesis is correct, then the fruit flies that develop at 18 degrees Celsius will complete their life cycle after those fruit flies that are placed at 29 degrees Celsius."


Step 4: Analyze Results and State Conclusions

Reject the hypothesis if the results are not consistent with the hypothesis or accept the hypothesis as possibly true if the results are consistent with the hypothesis. Notice that the hypothesis is not “proven to be true” even if the results do support it. This is because there may be explanations other than the hypothesis for the experimental result.

For example, if the fruit flies placed at 18 degrees Celsius do develop slower, it may be that their food is not as soft making it more difficult for the fruit flies to eat at the lower temperature, causing them to eat less food and thus grow slower.

If the experimental results do not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis may be modified and additional experiments may be done to test the new or revised hypothesis.
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
First thing he says, "The ancients first observed the way the planets seemed to move about in the sky and concluded that along with the earth they all went around the sun."
More accurately, it's the first thing he says from when yours truly timestamped the YouTube video. Of course, starting with that allowed him to insert a little joke moments later about Copernicus coming to the same (correct) conclusion forgetting that it had already been made

This agrees with what I said,
No, it doesn't

that planets are not observed orbiting the sun.
Yes, they are

If you have observed planets orbiting the sun then post a video.
A video I made, is that what you're asking me? Are you really such a dunderhead that you won't believe anything in science unless you personally witness it?
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Now, as promised, some Kepler for you (watch, listen, learn) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-UFr1X0prbo&t=11m45s

More accurately, it's the first thing he says from when yours truly timestamped the YouTube video.
FEARFUL of @Hermit's attention span maxing out (in seconds), I was still hopeful that he would watch the video from the timestamp until he got to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, alas that seems unlikely to have been the case

Heck, if he had watched just a little further than that, he would have discovered more gems, such as the law of inertia, gravity (the angels flapping their wings pushing the planets towards the Sun), how we discovered that the speed of light is finite by observing the orbit of a moon of Jupiter, how because of an anomaly in the orbit of Uranus and armed only with pencil and paper, astronomers knew where to look for an undiscovered planet and sure enough, when they looked there, the planet Neptune was found. All of that stuff and more in only a few minutes of a Feynman lecture..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-UFr1X0prbo&t=20m20s


I ❤️ science
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
906
Reaction score
800
Yes, they are


A video I made, is that what you're asking me? Are you really such a dunderhead that you won't believe anything in science unless you personally witness it?
Post a video made by anyone that shows planets going around the sun. If you can observe it yourself, then go outside now and record a video of it.

I ❤️ science
I see you facepalmed my citation of the scientific method and then you say "I love science"... you are an absolute bell-end.
 

AN2

Well-known member
Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 16, 2024
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
1,284
Post a video made by anyone that shows planets going around the sun. If you can observe it yourself, then go outside now and record a video of it.
Like you post "videos" of flat-earth? 🤣

I see you facepalmed my citation of the scientific method and then you say "I love science"... you are an absolute bell-end.
Yes, because you may as well have posted the recipe and cooking instructions for spaghetti carbonara

And, do I love the recipe and cooking instructions for spaghetti carbonara or do I love spaghetti carbonara? 🤔

How r u getting on with the Feynman lecture btw, have you watched any of it? And I've noticed that you haven't denied that the planets move (just that it's in an orbit around the Sun) or the law of inertia..

So, when you think about it, you should know why the Earth spins (at a constant speed so you don't notice it) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9zso7ChaQXQ&t=14
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Top Bottom