Because your reply doesn't address that, or the Question in the title. Nor the image, which is of a crater Earth model presenting a livable zone on a massive planet.
Oh.. Um. Ignore that other reply. What I meant to say was... i had a few different replies. i did address the question in the title.
No that's not it... Would you believe; I answered all of your Questions elsewhere! You're just not keeping up! Because of my big brain and stuff.
Personal note: That'll shut him up. leave him scrambling about this thread for hours, and then I'll come back and give a one or two word reply. Probably an insult about his mother.
wow. You watched that whole five hour video already?
I'm impressed.
Earth has zero curve. it cannot be in a crater on a large planet because we can see that there is no curve,
Well I can't argue against that. As your statements are not based on anything, therefore, I literally can not debate them. They don't even act to prove anything. You have simply stated them as fact when they are not.
OK. I'll take a stab at it none the less. The maximum visibility with landmarks such as mountains is 150 miles. Yet in reality, I have never viewed anything more than 50 miles out, 10 in my local area. Which in fact, proves nothing conclusively either way.
take a stance, prove something if you can, or just accept that FE is just a superior explanation for all that we observe.
I can't tell if you are contradicting what you have just said, or being metaphorical.
Either way, you are tripping balls my man. That and have taken far too many drama lessons.
I have no idea what it is you wished to have expressed upon me. None what so ever.
Maybe you should have started by addressing my submission statement in this thread before replying to a Question you do not understand?
https://conspiracies.win/p/16b5lULSJF/x/c/4TsavcOyx4q
Because your reply doesn't address that, or the Question in the title. Nor the image, which is of a crater Earth model presenting a livable zone on a massive planet.
Oh.. Um. Ignore that other reply. What I meant to say was... i had a few different replies. i did address the question in the title.
No that's not it... Would you believe; I answered all of your Questions elsewhere! You're just not keeping up! Because of my big brain and stuff.
Personal note: That'll shut him up. leave him scrambling about this thread for hours, and then I'll come back and give a one or two word reply. Probably an insult about his mother.
Your mother sucks lemons.
wow. You watched that whole five hour video already?
I'm impressed.
Well I can't argue against that. As your statements are not based on anything, therefore, I literally can not debate them. They don't even act to prove anything. You have simply stated them as fact when they are not.
OK. I'll take a stab at it none the less. The maximum visibility with landmarks such as mountains is 150 miles. Yet in reality, I have never viewed anything more than 50 miles out, 10 in my local area. Which in fact, proves nothing conclusively either way.
I can't tell if you are contradicting what you have just said, or being metaphorical.
Either way, you are tripping balls my man. That and have taken far too many drama lessons.
I have no idea what it is you wished to have expressed upon me. None what so ever.