Flat-Earther Is Going To Launch Himself In A Homemade Rocket

Submitted by: kalron27 2 weeks ago in Science


This weekend Mike Hughes will try to prove the world wrong and show the Earth is Flat.  In his home made rocket that he built by means I don't quite understand will launch from an abandoned town in the Mojave Desert

To quote the man himself:  "I don't believe in science".  So how exactly was the rocket built then?  Does he have a group of Rocket Gnomes that come at night and build it for him?

Update: Hughes told The Washington Post that the Bureau of Land Management has record of giving Hughes “verbal permission” to hold the rocket launch on public lands as he had previously claimed, meaning that the rocketeer has decided to delay the launch date and move the location "three miles down the road." Maybe this weekend?
There are 181 comments:
Male 349
Natural Selection, this is your que.
0
Reply
Male 2,717
Pfft. Of course the earth is round - Has been since they turned on the large hadron collider.
1
Reply
Male 428
This guy, and all Flat Earthers for that matter, need only look at the North Star to see the earth is round.  In the Northern Hemisphere, Polaris is positioned such that the altitude of the Star (e.g., Degrees from the horizon) is the latitude at which you are currently standing.  To illustrate - If Polaris appears 45 degrees above the horizon, you're at 45 degrees latitude. If it appears 5 degrees above the horizon, you are at 5 degrees latitude.  The closer you get to the equator, the closer Polaris gets to the horizon.  And once you go south of the equator, Polaris completely disappears.  That cannot happen if you are standing on a geometric plane.
1
Reply
Male 5,311
skeeter01 I had to check. Yep, there's an incredibly inaccurate video to show how Polaris "proves" a flat earth. Link. The comments are hilariously insane.
1
Reply
98
skeeter01 Atmospheric reflectrefractinarisum!  and western media illusions.
3
Reply
Male 5,427
stevopusser Nailed it!
1
Reply
Male 40,588
skeeter01 Do not confuse the issue with facts!
3
Reply
Male 3,836
Gerry1of1 i get derps and sherpas confused
2
Reply
Male 5,427
rumham 

Derpa:


Sherpa:


You're welcome. ~bows~
2
Reply
Male 3,836
squrlz4ever damn did that dog get stung by a bunch of hornets.  sherpas kick ass!
squirlez i made you a humping post for your addiction, kinda like a cat scratching post. just more pervy
0
Reply
Male 5,427
rumham A humping post? ~intrigued~ If it's internally heated and has a soft, human skin-like texture, I'm in. You should contact PetCo. I bet you could work out a lucrative licensing deal.

Also: Check out my rather lengthy exchange with 5Cats below.
0
Reply
Male 3,836
squrlz4ever did he call you a fucking moron and told you to eat his dick. thats my guess
0
Reply
Male 3,836
rumham and upon further viewing we all know 5cats is creepy tiny catgirl weirdo so im so shocked,
0
Reply
Male 765
Hope he launches himself into a flat clay-based vertical structure, at speed.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Actually? The Apollo Astronauts DID lie to us:
They were ordered to say the Earth's atmosphere looks like "the peel of an orange". But in fact it looks much thinner than that from space: more like the fuzz on a peach.
Go look for yourself!
It was feared that widespread panic would result from an accurate description, like the War Of The Worlds broadcast, eh?

Other than that? It was real :-)

0
Reply
98
5cats Look where?
0
Reply
Male 41,611
stevopusser If you don't know how to find things on the internets yet? Lolz! There's more to learn than I can teach you here...
0
Reply
Male 348
3
Reply
Male 40,588
mentott510 I did it first
0
Reply
Male 3,836
Gerry1of1 you said "did it"
1
Reply
Male 41,611
mentott510 Oh yes, you win the thread!!
That's perfect :-) Thx for the Lolz!
0
Reply
Male 6,653
oh, he's only going 1,800 feet up? Well he's not going to see it then.  I've heard it's not observable until around a 130,000 feet.  Most commercial jets don't fly that high (max is something like 13 miles).  The Concorde flew at 18miles and even then the results were inconclusive (even among people who were looking for it specifically).  So we're left with military craft and balloons, flying /floating up to ~130,000 feet.

Seriously, 1800 feet.. he might as well fly to Dubai and take the elevator to the top of the Burj Khalifa which is 2700 feet.
0
Reply
Male 3,836
monkwarrior i've never seen Dubai with my own eyes, i'm not convinced it exists
1
Reply
Male 6,653
rumham There are some documentaries outlining its construction, but i understand your position.
0
Reply
Male 3,836
monkwarrior western media delusions 
0
Reply
Male 6,653
rumham since it's in the east, im not sure that applies.
0
Reply
98
monkwarrior A fundraiser for a balloon flight to over 100K ft would certainly be more reasonable than his flying coffin.  I don't doubt that he didn't do it because it would have shown the curvature of the earth.

And the other flatheads are disowning him...he's only playing the FE angle because of the added publicity, as can be seen that he's getting here on this site.  Even they know that 1800 ft means nothing one way or another.
0
Reply
Male 6,653
stevopusser It would probably be a lot better to do with a balloon.
0
Reply
Male 3,836
monkwarrior thats what she said
0
Reply
Male 6,653
rumham pics or it didnt happen.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior Not sure where you are getting 130,000 feet. Every reputable place I look says 35,000 or 39,000 which is easily achievable on a commercial ariplane. Next time you are on a long distance flight, hold up a piece of paper above the horizon - you'll see the curve.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 The problem is that the windows are so small you won't get a 60 percent view to say for sure.  Also those windows are shaped and don't give a true perspective.  I've been on a plane before.  Next time you're on one pay close attention to the glass you're looking through.  Hint: pay attention before you take off, and before your plane starts moving at all.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior Commercial airline windows are plenty big enough for the paper experiment. And the corners of the windows are curved not the actual window surface. From what I read here it was quickly found in early flights that 90 degree corners cracked under the pressure.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Yet people supposedly can't see it until around 23-25 miles.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior They would see it at 35,000 to 39,000 feet if they held up a straight object above the horizon for comparison. You start to see it at around 35,000 feet so it's not as noticeable without a comparison.
0
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 I haven't tried that, maybe next time i will.
0
Reply
Male 3,351
Denied permission for a rocket - mayhap he should just get himself a hot air balloon.
1
Reply
Male 40,588
Jackass did this already 


2
Reply
Male 4,216
What are the odds, that he successfully launches but a US military satellite mistakes it for a North Korean Nuke and he gets blasted to shit before he gets to his desired height?
1
Reply
Male 41,611
daegog The same as the odds that you make one intelligent comment here on IAB, actually...
1
Reply
Male 4,216
5cats How was your papa john's pizza today?
1
Reply
Male 41,611
daegog And he proves my point! Brava!
0
Reply
Male 3,836
daegog does papa johns make a traditional white pizza?
1
Reply
Male 1,604
" the Bureau of Land Management has record of giving Hughes “verbal permission” to hold the rocket launch on public lands"
and the actual quote would be something like "HAHAHAHA Whatever dude. Go for it!"
2
Reply
Male 6,653
Should be interesting, i hope he gets back safely.  Also by the "I don't believe in science" i think he was referring to the governmental 'science' that is preached to the masses, but is questionable.  like the 'evidence' of the moon landing.  Or more recently the 'evidence' of the 9/11 collapses (that has been found to be fabricated).
-1
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior What do you think is the shape of the sun? The moon? Venus? Any other planet within the solar system? Any other star within our galaxy? Any other planet within this universe?


Hypothetically, let's all pretend man -did- go to the moon. Let's pretend all the information that was gathered on the moon is real. What would the purpose of going back to the moon be? What would we learn by going back there?

Also, please simply answer the questions without any rhetoric. For example, the first segment can be answered with one single word/idea. "The shape of the sun is (cylindrical)", "The shape of the moon is (a cube)".
The second is a little more open, but we are hypothetically saying we landed on the moon, so I don't want an answer like "To prove the Earth is flat/round/cubic", or "To prove that we can."

If you can't -not- interject your own rhetoric, don't bother answering. You'll just show that you can't have an open discussion and prefer to just to make wrong assumptions.
2
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 What would we learn by going back to the moon (assuming we went in the first place)?  Since it's the most sensible stepping stone for humankind into space, we could learn to expand past LEO. Learn to live on a celestial body other than earth.  Put a telescope on the other side of the moon for our best images of space with little interruption.  Build a science station to learn how to live on another planet, examine the long-term effects on people living on the moon, compare them to people living on earth.  The sky is the limit to what we could do and learn, assuming, of course, that we can even get there at all.
-1
Reply
Male 41,611
monkwarrior Actually the "legrange points" where the gravity of the Earth and Moon are in equilibrium are far better launching points or intra- and inter- stellar travel...
Unless there's water on the moon, then the Moon wins hands down.

Ooo! I actually remembered the name correctly! Lmao!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

If the Earth is flat, and the Moon is flat too? How do they orbit at all? :/ Wouldn't that require a 2D surface?
0
Reply
Male 6,653
5cats interesting.  I simply question the curvature calculations of the earth.
0
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior Thanks for answering the second part without rhetoric.

Unfortunately, we are going with that we did land on the moon, the moon is not only farther than LEO, it's farther than HEO.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg

LEO ends at about 2k km; HEO starts at 35k km; the moon is at 385k km 
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 That's beside the point.  The point is since the last 'supposed' moon landing, the furthest humans have 'supposedly' gone is LEO.
-1
Reply
Male 41,611
monkwarrior So... humans never once circled the moon? Not while landing on it, I mean before. And we took pictures of the "dark side" as well yes? Or is that all fake too?

BTW some of the IAB Liberals think you're my sock-puppet. They are fucking idiots, eh? 
The ones that think that, not 'all of them' of course. What a PC world we live in...
0
Reply
Male 10,380
5cats I've seen you be accused of having a few sock puppets, but never monk.
0
Reply
Male 5,427
5cats Who thinks Monk is your sockpuppet? I've never seen anyone--liberal, conservative, or of any other political persuasion--make that claim.
1
Reply
Male 5,311
squrlz4ever It’s bizarre to watch such an over-the-top angry and verbally abusive person pretend to be a victim. At least he’s mixing it up lately with humor by telling people to (look it up) after writing common words like pathological and indulgences. He’s the one that needs to look up pathological.
2
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 I've had IAB Liberals tell me the dictionary isn't a source for the meanings of words... so yes, you are one of the worst for that actually.

And you falsely accuse me of using puppets based on outright lies. Making claims without merit or even the possibility of merit. Saying you did things (looked up every comment made over a period of hours) which are utterly impossible for you to do unless you are a moderator here. And even then? Even if it 'were true' it proves absolutely nothing at all.

So yeah, it's amusing you should claim I'm 'pretending' after telling such horrible lies which prove I am correct...
0
Reply
Male 5,311
5cats. “I've had IAB Liberals tell me the dictionary isn't a source for the meanings of words... so yes, you are one of the worst for that actually.”

I’m a writer. I would never say such a thing. I don’t even know what you are talking about. Your claim that I am the worst for that is a lie.

5cats, “Saying you did things (looked up every comment made over a period of hours) which are utterly impossible for you to do unless you are a moderator here.... So yeah, it's amusing you should claim I'm 'pretending' after telling such horrible lies which prove I am correct.”

You’re making up a lie to argue against something I never said. That’s your MO. What I said is with just the short list of the most recent comments shown on thething911’s profile I could tell by the insults alone it was you. And I only looked because of the way thething911 attacked someone was exactly the way you attack people.

5cats, “And you falsely accuse me of using puppets based on outright lies.”

I accused you of it based on thething911’s behavior not lies. I would never have accused you of it if my confidence level was low. I am 95% sure it is you.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 So you now admit you have literally nothing to support your claim. That my insults and 911's are 'the same' is the entire basis for your lies?
List them, these 'same insults' then. 
I bet he uses the word 'the' a lot too, and so do I! PROOF eh?

You are 95% wrong because I know for an absolute fact it isn't me, I have no puppets.

AGAIN I ask: WHY? Why would I use a puppet when I say everything under my own name already? 911 has been around for many years, yet you (and/or others) claim I made these puppets recently, so also explain how I did that?
0
Reply
Male 10,380
5cats it's funny you say that since you specifically said the dictionary didn't prove you wrong about the definition of burglary because different areas use the word differently. Are you projecting?
3
Reply
Male 5,427
markust123 Agreed.

Do you know of anyone, liberal or otherwise, who's suggested Monk is a puppet of 5Cats? As I said, I haven't. I suspect this is an attempt by 5Cats to muddy the waters and promote the idea that any claim of sockpuppetry on 5Cats' part is absurd.

The only sockpuppets I know of on IAB are MoldySod and TheThing911, both of which are clearly sockpuppets of 5Cats. Why he doesn't just come clean about the sockpuppetry now that it's essentially public knowledge, I have no idea.

There is one other account I suspect is a sockpuppet, and that is WiltChamberlain. I don't know who's behind it, but it seems clear that someone created the account specifically to hurl one insult, again and again, at 5Cats.

Those three accounts are the only sockpuppetry I know of or suspect on IAB. Two of them are 5Cats. 5Cats was the first person on IAB to start throwing around the word sockpuppet and he makes charges of sockpuppetry more than any other person on here. So yet again another instance of him claiming others are doing what he's doing himself.

He's a piece of work.
1
Reply
Male 41,611
squrlz4ever Fuck you. You're now claiming that because YOU haven't seen someone say something to me, that it never happened? THAT is your logic here? Really now? That's the best you have? pathetic.

Or perhaps you've reviewed every comment ever made to me or about me and that's how you know? This is more of your sickness, I want nothing to do with you so stop begging for attention ok?

You claim no one ever said the word 'sockpuppet' before me? Or are you claiming that in the face of obvious sockpuppets, (which even you admit are obviously puppets) I'm somehow wrong to use that word?

You have not one bit of evidence I do it, never mind proof! Nothing. Ask FancyLad. I keep saying he can tell everyone exactly how many puppets I use... as long as he exposes all the rest as well. I use 0, you cannot and have not shown otherwise.

Fuck your lies, you and that other liar can go fuck each other, I know he'd like that...
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats Why would fancy ever do that.  The vast majority of you guys that cause and talk about all this drama on here are all fancy's sock puppets anyway.  All this crap is just fake.  People like to read it and fancy likes to write it, so win-win I guess?
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 True, but lots of people are also sickened and disgusted by it all, and will not be coming back.

It's just bad for everyone, not that puppets are around (that's inevitable) but these false accusations and lies being spread, it's juvenile...
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats Please show me these people?  People LOVE drama like this.  Most people do not like being in the middle of it, but the majority of people LOVE witnessing it.  If people did not like this kind of Drama, why are all the top rated shows on television FILLED with similar drama?
0
Reply
Male 5,311
5cats Actually, you are the leading cause of people not coming back. Mr. "fuck you" talking about something being juvenile is the cherry on your comment.
0
Reply
Male 5,427
5cats You know, the normal and obvious response to my skepticism about your claim that "some of the IAB Liberals think [Monk is] my sock-puppet" would be to simply provide the usernames of those who've made the assertion.

But you play by your own rules obviously. So carry on with your two sockpuppets, your claims of victimhood, and your never-ending barrage of profanity. You do you, as they say.
1
Reply
Male 41,611
squrlz4ever Unlike yourself? I do not keep extensive files on the members of IAB. I am not a sick little monkey like you are. You also admit to keeping (what you consider to be) child pornography on YOUR hard drive. I do no such thing.

You make the claim of puppetry, now prove it or STFU. Very simple. Changing the subject and attacking me isn't a valid reply. You need to PROVE no one has said so, or to offer VALID arguments that this is the fact. 

You claim I have 2 puppets? Name them fuck-face. And then PROVE they are me. Or request that Fancylad "out them" because I fully support him doing that. If those IAB members aren't who they say they are? Then reveal who they really are! DO IT! Because it isn't me. 
Then reveal all the rest of the puppetry here. You agree or not?

And answer this question (which you have refused to answer thus far) WHY? Why would I use a puppet when I say anything and everything under my own name? What possible motivation would I have? Those 41K comments speak for themselves, go read them all ok?

Meanwhile? Stop telling lies. 
0
Reply
Male 5,427
5cats I have never met anyone online who is so consistently deceitful as you. So congratulations there. You definitely take the prize.

To cut through the fog of your bullshit, I'll use a numbered list.

1A. You wrote: I keep "extensive files on the members of IAB."

1B. The reality: The only person on IAB I've kept any notes about is you and that's because I found it alarming that you were working in a children's daycare center while spamming IAB for two years with sexualized drawings of little girls in their underwear. It creeped me out and creeped out a lot of other IAB'ers as well. Keeping notes and screenprints became necessary because once I called you out on the daycare work and your "catgirl" obsession, the lying started and it hasn't stopped since.

The images and GIFs you posted (and posted, and posted, and posted) were not obscene and I've never called them pornography. Rather, they were pedophilic and creepy. There is no way on Earth someone who is working with children should be posting images of prepubescent girls posing provocatively in their underwear or even less (one image, for example, was of a six-year-old girl without underwear and the ribbon draped over her privates shows a cameltoe). I could post the images here--and will if anyone insists--but I'd rather not.

The comments you wrote about your "catgirl" fetish are equally disturbing. See just three examples (of many) below.







2A. You wrote: "You also admit to keeping (what you consider to be) child pornography on YOUR hard drive. I do no such thing."

2B. The reality: Whoa. This is a textbook example of the kind of twisted deceit that is your hallmark. You take the fact that I have screenshots of some of the creepiest pedophilic drawings you've spammed IAB with and attempt to turn it into a confession on my part that I have child pornography on my hard drive. The mind boggles at the outrageousness of the lie.

To be perfectly clear: I have absolutely no pedophilic yearnings, thank God, nor have I ever had any form of any child pornography on my hard drive, ever. Judging by your statement "It's always catgirl time in my mind...," I'm not at all convinced you can truthfully say the same.

When it comes to little girls--or boys, for that matter--my only desire, if you will, is that they be allowed to grow up unmolested and that pedophiles be kept as far away from them as possible. That means 50+ year old men who giggle over the "human-like parts down there" featured in their "catgirl" drawings and animations shouldn't be working in a children's daycare center.

I have often been puzzled why you insist on raising this topic again and again, thereby forcing me to discuss it. This original discussion was about sockpuppets; it had nothing whatsoever to do with your "catgirl" fetish and your work with little children. By making the outrageous claim that I have "admit[ted] to keeping... child pornography on [MY] hard drive," you have forced me to cover the topic once again.

I am beginning to think you have some kind of inner compulsion that's forcing you to keep returning to the topic, knowing that every time you do, I will be forced to discuss your pedophilic drawings and daycare center work. I cannot understand why you would be doing this otherwise.

3A. You wrote (in reference to my skepticism that "some IAB liberals" think Monk is your sockpuppet): "You need to PROVE no one has said so, or to offer VALID arguments that this is the fact."

3B. The reality: This is patently ridiculous. Instead of simply supporting your claim that "some IAB liberals" think Monk is your sockpuppet by giving usernames, now you're asking me to prove a negative. You're the one who made the claim about what "some IAB liberals" think; the burden of proof is yours, not mine.

4A. You wrote: "You claim I have 2 puppets? Name them fuck-face."

4B. The reality: I've named them on at least two occasions before. Your sockpuppet accounts are MoldySod and TheThing911. I'd venture to say that at this point, practically every IAB'er who's at least passing bright and has been paying attention is aware of this.

5A. You wrote: "And then PROVE they are me. Or request that Fancylad out them because I fully support him doing that."

5B. The reality: As you well know, no one can prove sockpuppetry unless (1) they are able to read the IP addresses and (2) the person setting up the multiple accounts has been careless and hasn't anonymized or otherwise changed his IP address.

As with the names of the sockpuppet accounts, I find it odd that you are now asking me to assert that Fancy should investigate sockpuppet accounts because I've done so on numerous occasions already. One month ago, there was an entire post about sockpuppets on IAB and people discussed the topic extensively. You never made a single comment in the entire thread, which we all found peculiar.

To repeat: I've asked Fancy to look into the MoldySod and TheThing911 accounts--and any others anyone suspects of sockpuppetry--on multiple occasions. Others have as well. I wish he'd act, but I'm not holding my breath. Fancy is one of the most hands-off website administrators I've ever seen.

6A. You wrote: "What possible motivation would I have [to use sockpuppets]?"

6B. The reality: Plenty. With your sockpuppets, you can support yourself in arguments, attack others, upvote your own comments, downvote other users with three votes instead of one, et cetera, et cetera. Your faux ignorance about what sockpuppets are used for reeks. Your sockpuppet MoldySod first appeared on IAB to support you when you were losing an argument, yet again, to HolyGod. (MoldySod, HolyGod: Get it? Get it? Yes, 5Cats, we all get it.)

7A. You wrote: "Stop telling lies."

7B. The reality: It makes my fur crawl to see you end such a long screed of deception with the words, "Stop telling lies." No doubt about it: You are a piece of work.
1
Reply
Male 41,611
squrlz4ever Go fuck yourself you pathological liar.

Your arguments are so dumb, it's painful! And you completely ignore most of what I've said in order to repeat the lies you tell without admitting they're just plain baseless. How childish!

The reasons you give for me to use a puppet are 'generic' ok? They apply to ANYONE who's ever argued about anything on IAB. They apply equally to you as they do to me! They don't count as evidence I've used puppets at all, unless they also count against you, get it? They show you could be those two puppets just as much as me.

I gave specific reasons why a specific group of people, or indeed individuals, were suspected of using/being puppets. Not blanket 'reasons' which apply to everyone, everywhere.

And MoldySod's name? You now have ESP to read the mind of whomever made that account? This ESP seems to be a common trait among deranged leftists... I thought it meant 'Moldy old Sod' which is an old expression. I made no connection to the stalker's name until it was pointed out. You have proof otherwise? Lets see it. After all, you've obsessively kept records of everything I've said here... psychopath. 

Anyhow, back to oblivion for you! Please stop begging for attention, it makes you look even more pathetic than you already are.

0
Reply
Male 5,311
squrlz4ever, “One month ago, there was an entire post about sockpuppets on IAB and people discussed the topic extensively. You never made a single comment in the entire thread, which we all found peculiar.”

It was very odd that he didn’t join in on that thread. Especially since most of us didn’t even know what a sock puppet was until 5cats accused someone of being one.
2
Reply
Male 3,812
squrlz4ever wow...that was a well thought out summoned Wall of Text!
1
Reply
Male 5,311
squrlz4ever I haven't seen anyone accuse him of being Monk either. That came out of left field. Yeah, WiltChamberlain is definitely a sock puppet. Quiet about the other two sock puppets. He hasn't commented as the most obvious one for three weeks and the other for one week. Hopefully he has stopped using them.
2
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 So you haven't seen it, therefor it must be a lie! 
Fuck you. Sincerely! 
And some other commenters haven't been around, YOU SAY (without proof), so they MUST BE PUPPETS there is NO other explanation! And no other commenters haven't been active in the same time either! You know this... how?
Fuck you again. 
You've looked at every comment made here in the past 3 weeks and charted them to see if they are connected to mine somehow? no? Then stop your lies.

We agree Wilt is an obvious puppet: all he does is throw abuse at me specifically.
I know there's at least 2 puppets by 2 separate commenters because of things they said. I suspect 1-2 more but whatever. I don't care if you believe me, I know it. I rarely even mention the 4 names involved. IDK if I ever even did mention all 4...

The point is that YOU KNOW you are LYING: so stop it. You know you have no proof, yet you continue with your accusations. Fuck off already: take your shit elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
5cats, “I know there's at least 2 puppets by 2 separate commenters because of things they said. I suspect 1-2 more but whatever. I don't care if you believe me, I know it.”

Your claim here made me laugh. The reasoning you used is how I know thething911 is you. Your anger is what gave it away that you are him.
2
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 Liar, go fuck a stump. 
I've frequently disagreed with him in past years, you are literally full of shit.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 Fuck off with your lies, have you no shame?
0
Reply
Male 6,653
5cats Yeah you know how some of the I-A-B are.  I question the whole moon achievement.  It doesn't make sense that for 3 years, between 1969 and 1972 these 'achievements' could take place, yet for the next almost 50 years not a single thing.  They're like "oh its a big thing that we flew to LEO again".  Instead of regular orbits around the moon or a moon base.  It really smells fishy as every year goes past without a supposed return, especially with NASA people saying "we don't have the technology" and then saying how modern technology can't get throught he van-allen belts, when they could easily make a computer with specs that Could get through them (since they supposedly did it in 1969-1972).
0
Reply
Male 41,611
monkwarrior Well the costs of such missions have gone up exponentially since then I think. And the risk/reward is really limited now. 
There's lots of other, better ways to explore space and learn stuff without endangering human lives, or at least not too many lives.
0
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior Okay, and what's to learn out there?

And again, "Just to see if we can" is a self gratitude answer that supports your rhetoric. Because, in our hypothetical, we already have.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 Nice try, but your ignorance to push your own rhetoric gets you no further.
-2
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior So what you're saying is, that there is nothing really to learn to go to the moon again, so why bother going to the moon?

(Fuck guys, I think I taught him a new word that he'll use incorrectly from here on out)
2
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 No, I'm saying you're ignoring everything I've said, and lost all credibility by being a hypocrite.
-1
Reply
Male 41,611
monkwarrior Wow, that comment is 'weaksauce' dude...

DuckBoy has asked a perfectly reasonable question, and done so politely! Answer it or not, but don't throw shit at him, ok?
1
Reply
Male 3,708
5cats Thanks, though I wasn't -that- polite. I was quite blunt about what I was looking for. His throwing shit is like the smallest pimple on this spherical world's ass; it means nothing.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
5cats Actually, he ignored 4 of 5 things i mentioned to focus on LEO.
0
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior I asked what would we have to learn to go back to the moon. Again, my hypothetical. You said to see if we could expand past the LEO. Well, in my hypothetical we have already expanded past the LEO.

So what do we learn by doing something that in, again, my hypothetical we have done many times?

All I'm saying is "Just to do it" is null answer, a cop out. Nothing hypocritical with it when dealing with a hypothetical. 

Well let me get to the point, because you'll obviously never see it unless I tell you; the answer is nothing. There's nothing on the moon to learn about that we don't already know.

Which brings me to the real question, the meat of this discussion.

If there's nothing to learn, why go back? Why go somewhere if there's nothing to learn? Why spend millions of dollars, spend millions of man-hours, just to learn nothing?
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 So all i said was something about LEO?  Gee, you're really ignorant aren't you?  Because i'm re-reading and i seem to have said a LOT more than just LEO, but all you want to do is focus on LEO as if that's the only thing i said.  Gee, that's not too smart is it?
-1
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior Well, here's the kicker. You can't orbit something that's flat. And this is why I'm focused on orbit. For satellites and stations to remain hovering above the earth as they do, on a flat earth, they would have to be perpetually thrusting away from the earth. So far, that would be the Vanguard 1C that has been in orbit for since 1958. And is still in orbit.

How much fuel would it take to keep it thrusting above the earth, if not for the orbit of a spherical planet? A ton.
2
Reply
Male 5,427
DuckBoy87 Great observation, DuckBoy. Kudos.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 So you think the earth is flat now?
0
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior No? I'm saying the entire physics and logistics of man-made satellites completely disprove a flat earth, as there isn't enough fuel on Earth or the moon, to keep them "afloat"
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 So you think changing the subject will somehow get you off of the ignorance of the many other reasons i listed to return to the moon (assuming we even went in the first place)?
0
Reply
Male 3,708
monkwarrior No, this is how conversations happen. A conversation, much like science, isn't stagnant; it's always changing.

I ask a question.
You answer it.
I either refute what you say, or you ask a question.
Rinse, lather, repeat.

You said something interesting, that being about LEO, I further inquired about it. If you'd like to go back to the original hypothetical, we can. Here, you're wrong. Now that that's over, let's move on to a different topic; how do satellites work?
1
Reply
Male 6,653
DuckBoy87 Wrong, you ignored every other reason to go back to the moon that i posted, and wanted to focus solely on LEO.  Now you're trying to save face, but can't.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior, "Or more recently the 'evidence' of the 9/11 collapses (that has been found to be fabricated)."

You keep making this baseless claim but your ridiculous 911 videos have yet to convince anyone on IAB of this. Not one person. If the facts were actually there, somebody would have been convinced. The problem with conspiracy theorists is you guys don't rely on facts. You only see what you want to see and ignore any real evidence that proves you wrong. It's just another version of not being able to admit you are wrong.
3
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Correction, it has not convinced you.  However you aren't able to speak for all the visitors of I-A-B, especially those who choose to remain silent.  Scientists are finding the facts don't add up to the 'official report' of 9/11, which is why there is such an outcry over it.  The problem you seem to have, is that you think the facts are a 'conspiracy theory', or that all 'conspiracy theories' are false.  Neither are true, unfortunately, and it's well documented that your war term 'conspiracy theorist' (which was born in your own nation to pacify your people from learning the truth), is just a way to keep yourself in the dark of the truth.
-1
Reply
Male 3,836
monkwarrior snow towers bro. because SCIENCE!
2
Reply
Male 6,653
rumham Sometimes simple things, like an apple falling on someone's head, can put things into new perspective.  Though not everyone is as open minded and receptive to it, much less prepared to think on it.
0
Reply
Male 3,836
monkwarrior i didnt see any apple hit newtons head, i think that is pre-western media delusion
1
Reply
Male 6,653
rumham think whatever you like, it's your life!
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior, "The problem you seem to have, is that you think the facts are a 'conspiracy theory', or that all 'conspiracy theories' are false."

No, the problem with conspiracy theories is I need facts to be convinced - something conspiracy theorists rarely seem to provide. All I ever see provided as "proof" is conjecture that is easily disproved when the rest of the information is introduced.
2
Reply
Male 41,611
markust123 He has a point there, a minor one, but still a point.

Fancy once said there's about a 3:1 ratio of viewers to commenters. Maybe more, it was years ago :p

Anyhow, his being unable to convince anyone 'as far as you are aware' is a logical fallacy. It's not relevant to the truth or facts, ok?

I love conspiracies! And by golly, some of them are proven to be true! And many more are just... not so much true :p

But that isn't a reason to reject ALL conspiracies outright: judge each by its own merits (or lack thereof).

Fake moon landings? No merit. It is totally refuted.
9/11 has some secrets we haven't been told = highly probable. (look up the word probable, ok?)
0
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 You have plenty of facts available to you, the problem is you don't like them (as you previously showed us all back around the middle of september).
For example, you have
1: PBS - Colorado broadcasts 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (2012 documentary)
2: 9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA
3: Dr. Leon Husley of the Alaska Fairbanks University who reevaluates the collapse of WTC7 and finds fire did not cause the fall.
4: 50 questions they can't answer about 9/11 part1, part2, part3

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  But i know, i know, "I'm not going to click on your links and watch any more of your idiot video" -markust123

Which is why you'll keep yourself in the dark from the truth.
-1
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior Number 1 is not PBS, it was shown on PBS. It is another conspiracy video from Richard Gage's conspiracy organization AE911Truth. Number 2 is the conspiracy theorist Richard Gage again. Number 3 is easily debunked. Number 4 is that ridiculous pile of crap you subjected us to. Show me something that was an open investigation, that was peer reviewed by unbiased experts in the field. Not another fucking conspiracy theory video or phony study that relies heavily on conjecture.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Oh you're just grasping at straws to protect your fragile world view to keep yourself in the dark from the truth. Mick West article, really?  That's not debunked, and if you think so, clearly you have nothing, and now you're getting upset about it.  
-1
Reply
Male 5,427
markust123 That's a good point, Markus. If there were something to Monk's arguments regarding the Moon landings and 9/11, surely at least one IAB'er over the past few years would have been convinced by them. Yet to my knowledge, no one on here has.
2
Reply
Male 6,653
squrlz4ever It's only a good point to those who ignore the facts about what happened on 9/11, and want to believe the fable pushed on them as 'normalcy' by the media (so they don't get labeled the 'tinfoil nutjobs' like the media urges people to call them).  Sort of like that Group Dynamics video here, remember?  Group dynamics plays a powerful role in the western media delusions of your nation - more powerful than most would be willing to admit.
-1
Reply
Male 40,588
Hmmmm. I'm sure I've seen something like this before, I just can't remember where.



4
Reply
Male 41,611
Gerry1of1 Oh! Gerry wins the thread! Not Mentot (see above)
LMAO it's just so... appropriate!
0
Reply
Male 40,588
I want to watch this streaming live. An aerial demolition derby of one.
4
Reply
Male 5,427
LOL... I am reminded of a sentence from Tom Sawyer: "Let us draw the curtain of charity over the rest of this scene."
4
Reply
Male 40,588
If the Earth were flat by now there would have been some Russian teen hanging off the edge taking selfies.
2
Reply
Male 1,562
Gerry1of1 and dashcam videos of drunk Russians driving off the edge.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Gerry1of1 Damn! Gerry1 is on a ROLL!
That is irrefutable, since Russia must be on the edge at some point, eh?
Or Canada :D
0
Reply
Male 6,653
Gerry1of1 no, since Antarctica was put off limits and ships are not allowed to approach it any longer without authorization.  Plus it takes a lot to brave those seas, and most Russian teens don't have that kind of money.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
monkwarrior How about the North Pole then? Plenty of traffic there...

After all, it was "ice free" just last year, right? Al Gore predicted it, so it must have happened, right?
0
Reply
Male 6,653
5cats North pole sees lots of traffic, the antartica not nearly as much
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior How do you explain the fact that every side of Antarctica has been sailed past by multiple explorers?

1
Reply
98
markust123 Liars, every single one of them.  Western media delusion.  /sarcasm
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 so?  How does that help Russian teenagers attempt to hang off the edge (if there is one)?
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior It shows there is no edge to hang onto.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 So you've explored Antarctica first hand to say?  I somehow doubt that.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior So you were there when they wrote the Bible?  I somehow doubt that.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Nope, but I've tested it every which way possible to determine its validity.  I don't have the funds to test Antarctica, and I doubt you've been able to test Antarctica.
0
Reply
98

13:31 Another parable put he [ Jesus ] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4]

so you have verified that the mustard seed is indeed the smallest of all seeds, and grows into a tree?

0
Reply
Male 6,653
stevopusser In fact i have, it's a parable regarding the kingdom of heaven, that you would need to at least begin to understand before grasping its deeper meanings.
0
Reply
Male 4,216
monkwarrior Care to share that testing methodology?
1
Reply
Male 6,653
daegog Sure, just like scientists test a hypothesis by following the procedures, gathering the required materials and precisely following the methods, a person wanting to test scripture would need to follow its procedures, follow the methods, and do what is required to test them.  Not everyone is able to test them though, as they like to take their own opinion with procedures, or follow a method to a point, or swap it out completely.  Which is why some don't find what others do.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior That’s as big a crock as the comment I was mocking. It’s called faith for a reason. The Bible is not something scientific that can be tested. You could give a verse to a thousand people and get a thousand different meanings back. Whole books can be taken differently. Some people see the story of Noah as real while others see the story of Noah as a metaphor. Some people feel the need to push their religion on the public, while others feel religion is a private mater between them and God. One church can use the bible for hate and another use it for love. It's all in the interpretation.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Since you don't have faith in God, you're not really capable of stating if it is or not, are you?  But the procedures have been followed for many a generation and the results of what people have found through them have been corroborated many times over.  Not everyone is able to test them though, as they like to take their own opinion with procedures, or follow a method to a point, or swap it out completely.  Which is why some don't find what others do.  However as someone who has explored it in much depth, i can assure you that the procedures of faith can be tested very much like a scientific procedure.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior Please, send a link that explains what you are talking about because I can't find a single thing remotely close to testing the bible using methods and procedures. And who are you to judge my faith in God.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 You have made your position quite clear on several occasions, i'm simply echoing what you yourself have expressed to me.  As for the link:  http://www.biblegateway.com

Though i suspect, like the evidence against the 'official report' of 9/11, you'll find yet another excuse to deny that the methods are contained within it (hint: you'd be wrong).
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior I believe that you believe you can test scripture using methods and procedures. 
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Many people can, even you if you try.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior You sent me a link where I can look up scripture. Where in the Bible Gateway does it explain how to test scripture using methods and procedures? I don't see anything anywhere on the site.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 It's within scripture in many places, here's one for example: 
2 Timothy 2:15

2 Timothy 2:15

0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior That is just a bible verse that a hundred people could read a hundred different way. One denomination could teach it the exact opposite as another denomination. Show me how to test scripture using methods and procedures where the results of what people have found through them have been corroborated many times over. Don’t just show me scripture and say it’s in there. Show me the method. 
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 Like i said "you'll find yet another excuse to deny that the methods are contained within it".

"Study to show yourself worthy" is an example of a procedure. A method that you can follow, which is part of many, that can help you to see, understand, and experience the results.  Just like a budding biologist looking at a leaf under a microscope for the first time.  They have to get the leaf, put it under the microscope, ensure the light is working, and then find the right magnification.  Someone wanting to see that leaf without following the procedures to do that isn't going to see or understand or experience the results that others have seen.  It's quite a simple concept, and would be just as ridiculous for me to say "but i looked through the microscope and didn't see anything, and no im not touching any stupid knob - there's nothing!".
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior “Study to show yourself worthy" is not a procedure. It’s a vague a statement. Show me how to test scripture using methods and procedures where the results of what people have found through them have been corroborated many times over. Your words.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 As i said, it's one of many procedures in scripture.  The verse was twofold, to show that you would need to study, and to show that there are indeed procedures.  If you want to test scripture, you will need to study as everyone else has.  Fortunately it doesn't require elaborate apparatuses like some science hypothesis do, just your willingness to study, find, and follow the procedures.  If you want to see the results of what people found through them, look at the names of hospitals, most which still bear the names of saints. Or to your laws that have allows you to walk down the street without being killed, and able to go home without having your house ransacked.  Though, i suspect you'll find yet another excuse to ignore the procedures most of the world has already found.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
monkwarrior You’re the one that made this statement:

“Sure, just like scientists test a hypothesis by following the procedures, gathering the required materials and precisely following the methods, a person wanting to test scripture would need to follow its procedures, follow the methods, and do what is required to test them.”

You can’t test scripture like a scientists test a hypothesis. The Bible is not written in absolutes. If it was people wouldn’t have to explain what the verses mean. If it was people would all come to the same conclusion. If it was all denomination would teach the same explanation of the verses. The fact that you believe that you can do this makes me question your sanity.

Update: I apologize if that came off as mean. If believing you can do this makes your happy I’m all for it.
1
Reply
Male 6,653
markust123 The problem is you can test scripture, and you don't know because you haven't tested it successfully.  People who do successful test it come to the same conclusion: God exists.  Many people may interpret things differently, but that is part of its nature: it's the living word.  Your inability to test the procedures doesn't come across as mean to me at all, i understand your situation on the matter, but again you're wrong if you think it's not procedures that can help people understand faith in God.
0
Reply
Male 1,544
go for it man!
1
Reply
Male 40,588
"miles above the Earth" ? He's only going 1800 feet up, A third of a mile. A hot air balloon could go higher and you get to linger a while to collect his proof.
2
Reply
Male 1,562
Gerry1of1 he doesn’t want to prove the earth is round, he is looking to prove it’s flat, and he will - to himself at least.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Gerry1of1 Gerry is literally killing me tonight! Oh my sides!!!
(another excellent point!)
(Which I didn't notice I might add!)
0
Reply
Male 5,427
Gerry1of1 Excellent point. Honestly, nothing about this makes any sense whatsoever.
2
Reply
Male 1,604
squrlz4ever It makes perfect sense. "LOOK AT MEEEE!"
1
Reply
Male 5,427
squidbush LOL! Perhaps we'll need to add a *splat* at the end of that exclamation.
2
Reply
98
squrlz4ever He just needs to ask someone to hold his beer before launching.
1
Reply
Male 41,611
stevopusser My thought exactly:

"Hey! Lookie whut I cun do..." (splat)
0
Reply
2,920
If the earth is flat, why am I so round? 
1
Reply
Male 5,311
His first flight and rocket were all based on science. He only threw out this crazy narrative when he failed to get funding for a second flight. If he really wanted to prove the flat earthers correct he would get on a commercial flight where he could fly 20 times higher. Not knocking him. I love crazy, adventuresome guys like this.
1
Reply
Male 6,129
markust123 Here's a quote from the asshole regarding science:
"I don't believe in science," Hughes added. "I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that's not science, that's just a formula. There's no difference between science and science fiction."
The article is here:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/22/565926690/i-dont-believe-in-science-says-flat-earther-set-to-launch-himself-in-own-rocket
1
Reply
Male 5,311
broizfam I think he’s just playing the media to get funding. His first attempt was all about science.
1
Reply
Male 6,129
markust123 He's certainly using science. He just won't call it that. It's "just a formula". It's like saying a martini isn't a drink, it's just a mixture.
1
Reply
Male 1,284
markust123 a commercial flight can not be used.  They believe all the windows cause the same effect as a fish eye lens.  Any curvature you see from any private or commercial plane you did not build yourself is explained away by the windows.  Hence, they had to build their own.
1
Reply
Male 5,311
waldo863 Monk literally used this excuse above. That was hilarious to see.
0
Reply
Male 10,380
waldo863 I jumped out of a plane. There are no windows when you are sitting at the doorway. Curved. Super fucking curved. Also if the windows of a plane were causing the curve how come the wings of the plane and buildings still appear perfectly straight?
0
Reply
Male 1,284
holygod Oh I know, I'm just telling you what they would say.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
holygod I've done that too. But you're not going to see the curve of the earth when jumping out of a plane. Don't you need to be way higher? Like somewhere around 35,000 feet to start seeing the curve.
1
Reply
Male 10,380
markust123 Maybe to see the curve of the horizon itself but with no clouds and no hills / mountains you can look down and see in every direction. It is a circle.
0
Reply
Male 5,311
waldo863 Wow, that is just idiotic. There sure are a lot of hoops these people have to jump through to remain ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 8,792
I'm pretty sure that even where it to find incontrovertible proof that the Earth is round, he will just think to himself, "Who am I going to believe? What I already know or my own lying eyes?"

With any luck, he will take himself out of the gene pool.
3
Reply
Male 1,604
megrendel Darwin Award in the making.
1
Reply
Male 228
I hope this stupid asshole realizes the earth is round as he dies.   fucking idiot
0
Reply
Male 10,380
There has to be a purpose to a conspiracy. What do flat-earthers think the conspiracy is? I mean what is the reason that all the scientists, astronauts, satellite companies, and red bull have lied to us so elaborately for so long? Does anyone know?
1
Reply
Male 41,611
holygod Well because...
Because...
ummmmm...
Damn, I got nothing. And I have an incredible imagination!

What possible gain is there to claiming the Earth is round when it is in fact, flat?

I live on one of the flattest places on the planet, but when I look across our big lake? (Lake Winnipeg, google map: Beconia Manitoba (MB), look west) I can still see the Earth's curve... barely but there it is. Over water no less! If it really was flat? ALL the water would be flat too, yes?
0
Reply
Male 10,380
5cats Even crazier when you think about it. There is no reason for a conspiracy to exist.

I get why the government could have assassinated Kennedy.
I get why they could have faked the moon landing.
I get why 9/11 could have been an insane job.
I mean I can figure out WHY there would have been a conspiracy.

For the life of me I can't figure out who benefits from the world being convinced the Earth is round when it is flat. 

To be honest, and not to get sidetracked, it's how I feel about Benghazi. I don't see the conspiracy. I don't see how trying to get people to believe it was because of a movie makes things any better for them. Nobody has ever been able to tell me.

How's the new job? Do you like it or just a way to make money?
0
Reply
Male 41,611
holygod Yup, sometimes running a conspiracy is harder than just saying the truth. If the Earth is flat? Just say so! Lolz! What difference will it make?

The 'conspiracy' in Benghazi is not before the event, it is what came during and after. The lies and cover-ups are undeniable, it is well known who said what and who knew what (and when they knew it).
Leading up to it? there was terrible negligence and really stupid decisions, but those aren't directly Hillary's fault, afaik. It was systemic.

During the attack the people who should have acted? Did nothing. For hours and hours they didn't use any of the resources that could have brought about a better result. We'll never know if those men could have been saved because no one (Hillary directly) even tried.

It is in the cover-up that the crimes (conspiracies) are committed. Just like Nixon, just like Bill Clinton, and a host of others.

(Almost missed this question, added this) The New Job? Same as the old job: Working at a gas station part time. It's hard for me to work 20+ hours a week, eh? But I manage.
It's with Darlene, who was my boss for 3 years about 19 years ago. I worked for her daughter (on her recommendation) for the past 3 years and then moved when Lori (who is a lot like her mom, lolz!) took a bigger station over. I had NO confidence in the new manager, I'll tell you why if you're interested. 
It's MUCH easier! And Darlene is (still!) a really nice person! And I stay inside a lot, which is good when it's -30C and I'm old! The crew is nice and the building is newer too. I'm pleased!
0
Reply
Male 10,380
5cats In terms of Benghazi I'm talking mostly about the movie. That is what I tend to hear conservatives talk most about when it comes to a "conspiracy".

Glad you're doing well. You seem less angry lately. 
0
Reply
Male 41,611
holygod Oh, I have no idea about the movie. I've heard it was pretty accurate, as far as it can be.

I'm plenty angry about these lies people keep repeating, it's so childish of them.
0
Reply
Male 10,380
5cats No that isn't what I mean. After Benghazi the Obama administration said the attack was because of a movie. Conservatives jumped down their throat when it was found out not to be and accused the administration of lying about the movie. I'm pretty sure you've commented in that regard. My point is that the cause of the attack doesn't ease the culpability at all, so what do you think the point of the "conspiracy" was?
0
Reply
Male 5,427
holygod Something something when we realize the Earth is actually flat... something something regain our liberty from big government something something.

YEAH! ~pumps paw in air~
1
Reply
Male 428
holygod If I were to guess, I would say that it is just one of many "lies" we are told that are meant to lull us into accepting the facts presented to us by reflex.  Once everyone accepts what they are told as truth, it will be easier for the conspirators to continue to "lie" to us without anyone making a fuss.  Put simply, they're just prepping us for future lies that will be even bigger and more grandiose.

This is, of course, just a guess.  I got to this guess by pretending to be my crazy Uncle Gary, who believes all the conspiracy theories Faux News and Breitbart spit out.
1
Reply
Male 41,611
skeeter01 Well, that's better than anything I could come up with! 
Hats off! 

Have you seen this film? It has many flaws but... it's memorable! (Cube 1997)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/

A gigantic government project that just... it keeps on going!
0
Reply
Male 1,284
skeeter01 You sort of have it right, but not really.  At the time when this conspiracy started, it was meant as a distraction from other things, like the cold war.  You don't want to know about all the stuff that really went on during the cold war.  This was all to distract us from that. 

Since that happened, and they were pretty stupid with such a big lie, they have to keep the lie up or we will know that the government lies to us all the time about everything.  They really just keep this lie that the earth is round going to save face and keep covering up all that cold war stuff.

/sarcasm off
1
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 But 'the government' has been lying about the Earth being round since ancient Egypt and Greece, haven't they? Or at least since Galileo...
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats TAKE YOUR FACTS AND FUCK RIGHT OFF!!!!!!!!

/s
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 Fine! I'll take my facts and go home then!! :x

Lolz! :-)
0
Reply