1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

oh, fuck here we go. The fuck wits and their unscientific, non-repeatable laser test ignoring ground effects and air density. Please tell us your grade level of education.

3
savman 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are none, the earth is fucking round, just like every other celestial body for the same reason bubbles are not square or flat.

by pkvi
2
savman 2 points ago +2 / -0

This guy founded Greenpeace

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Frisland appears to have been born out of the confusion between an imaginary island and the actual southern part of Greenland. Frisland originally may also have been a cartographic approximation of Iceland, but in 1558 the influential Zeno map charted the landmass as an entirely separate island south (or occasionally south-west) of Iceland.

After this incorrect charting, the phantom island appeared that way on maps for the next 100 years.[1] Its existence was given currency in manuscript maps of the 1560s by the Maggiolo family of Genoa, and the island was accepted and reproduced by cartographers Gerardus Mercator and Jodocus Hondius. Some early maps by Willem Blaeu, such as his 1617 map of Europe, omit it, but it reappeared on his 1630 world map as one of many islands shown off the eastern coast of Labrador, which was then believed to extend to within a few hundred miles of Scotland. It also appeared on a 1652 world map by Visscher, largely copied from that of Blaeu. The 1693 Vincenzo Coronelli map places it close to Greenland.[2] Frederick J. Pohl identified Frisland with an island he referred to as "Fer Island", modern English Fair Isle, an island lying between mainland Shetland and the Orkney islands in his book arguing the case that Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney visited North America.[3] Even in the mid-18th century, explorers' maps clearly depicted Frisland as separated from Greenland by a wide strait.

The myth of Frisland was gradually dispensed with as explorers, chiefly from England and France, charted and mapped the waters of the North Atlantic.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

You get backlash because you're pushing ideas belonging to a twat.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is retarded. You obviously have never been to Paris, cause there are all sorts of original buildings still standing including the Eifel Tower. London, crystal palace, and all sorts of WF buildings remained until torn down years later. Keep in mind that in Chigago, many buildings were temporary and were 'facades' that did not require foundations, so they used wood instead of cement, and other 'faux' treatments.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it's not.

What is the point of this video? Is this proof it's made of cheese?

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

"mr round earth"

Such a professional insult, I don't know how I'll ever recover.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Watch the interview, looks like someone shot their dogs instead of them pulling off mankinds greatest accomplishment."

Taking words out of context is not proof.

"Cant return today, technology destroyed."

What are you talking about? Hundreds of unmanned missions are in the can. We could go back easily.

" Van allen belts."

200 x that of earth for 8 days is not going to kill you.

"Phone call 237,000 miles away when your cell loses reception at the the bottom of a hill."

20 watt radio is more than enough you fuck wit. Cell phones use a fraction of that so it does not radiate your head.

"Who filmed the spaceship leaving and panned up the camera?"

Nasa sent guidance to the camera which only starts panning upwards 2-3 seconds after liftoff. So it is plausible that the operator only sent the command to start panning at liftoff, or just a little before. And it's not like they didn't have a nice countdown leading up to it. In general, the tracking really doesn't seem all that accurate; the ascent module barely stays within the frame.

"Why are the same backgrounds seen in several locations?"

No idea what you are talking about.

"Why do we still not aphave a photo of earth?"

Like these?

https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+image+of+earth&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA784CA784&sxsrf=ALeKk00Aa6ukdXfz1KGKe3MsGwiRE3xpjw:1627315715919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioxry5j4HyAhVQsZ4KHRqYAToQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1440&bih=713

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh boy, you again? Anything you say is nothing more than drivel and low IQ pablum. You're a literal fucking twat and a colossal waste of oxygen.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

"I am not a scientist"

No fucking kidding. I'll bet you don't even know there is more than one kind of radiation. Don't jump into water you don't know how deep it is.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

No 'Bro', I like reality and not beta males pretending they 'know" things.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rigorous and substantial? Each mission has reams and reams of data, images and testimonials you can clearly research and even buy DVDs for each mission. How anyone can casually think that all the missions were faked are beyond stupid. Just look at the notion that the radiation would have killed everyone on board. Utter garbage. The fact is the radiation is 200x greater than flying in a jet. Walking on the moon is not a walk in the park but nothing close to being lethal. Airline pilots are exposed during their lifetime to far greater amounts, yet they live to be old pilots.

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol, I am MUCH better, hands down better if you think that is fake CGI. Just stop being a fucking shill for the conspiritards.

2
savman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, it's called reality vs. retardedness

1
savman 1 point ago +1 / -0

The people who say the moon landing was faked are the same brain-dead, low IQ morons who think the earth is flat. There will always by conspiritards pushing non-sense and subjective reasoning, but in the end, everything they say, and I mean EVERYTHING they use to show evidence is pure unadulterated bull shit.

by pkvi
3
savman 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’m just dumbfounded how gay Bezos looks in that faggy suit with the leg propped up on a strategically placed box

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›