See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://youtu.be/-Ax_YpQsy88
Published: Dec 29, 2019
Author: Eric Dubay
Post Date: 2019-12-29 19:57:38 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 26975
Comments: 351
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-236) not displayed.
.
.
.
#237. To: wudidiz (#236)
(sorry...I misspelled your name in a previous ping.)
Apparently you didn't read what was being discussed. The simple question was about posting a link to the proof of an assertion that was claimed to be the basis for the assertion. Here's a question for you. Why do objects fall to the ground if dropped? You apparently have no clue as to the fact people have known that the earth was a sphere orbiting the sun for at least 500 years. Go find a telescope and observe the stars and planets. You'll see that is the case. Also, find one with a motorized mount so that the earth's rotation doesn't make you lose track of the planet you're watching, as it'll move across the lens in seconds if you're trying to do it manually. Simple case of Mass & Density. (There is almost an hour of video that refutes it. You likely won't watch even 5 minutes of it, BUT, you just might learn something.) There is NO such thing as "Gravity." Yes, yes -- I know you're going to cite Newton. But Newton even admitted his "discovery" was just a THEORY. Right at the 4:23 mark it asserts that the video is somehow "fake" at the bottom of the screen. That is absurd. I stopped watching it there. However, the link between JPL,Crowley, and Hubbard was a very curious thing. I've known about it, but it doesn't change the fact the earth is not flat. Why do objects fall when dropped?
No. You need a force to move an object. Force is Mass * Acceleration When you push a box across the floor you have to exert a force upon that box for it to move. Does anyone disagree with the fact it takes a force to move an object?
People have merely theorized the Heliocentric model as dogma. Just as "Gravity" is a dogmatic "theory"; as are the alleged formulas for astronomical "distance," and "size" of alleged stars. It is also assumed that celestial bodies are indeed globes and NOT discs. Man can NOT see these objects in 3-D. Moreover, "stars" are not what we've been led to believe. The true shape of these objects is far from what we've been led to believe. For the vast majority of history, people have KNOWN our realm is still and un-moving. Ours is a geocentric realm. a great PLAIN. The stars? THEY move over EARTH as we remain stationary. If this wasn't the case, according to the heliocentric theory, the stars in the sky SHOULD be totally different were our alleged globe on the OTHER SIDE of the sun. (Can you explain why they remain positioned in EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE, regardless?) Moreover...because the stars remain positioned perfectly, predictably, and the SAME year in and year out, they've been used as THE perfect sky "map" from which to guide travelers or navigate the sea throughout the millennia. Go find a telescope and observe the stars and planets. You'll see that is the case. Others have done so. Repeatedly. THAT is "Science." The ABOVE is indeed proven. And yes --the ONLY celestial bodies which move opposite of the usual star paths ARE planets,, described as "wondering stars" in Scripture. (did you bother watching ANY of that vid?) What does "force" have to do with the necessity to "move an object"? What is the goal? Ok. That's acceptable science. But what's he point? And do you flat earth people not understand that the force of gravity is calculated as follows? Force of Gravity (g) = Mass (m) * Acceleration due to gravity (32 ft per second squared) This is true of earth gravity at sea level. At higher altitudes you would use the following equation to determine the force; F = G((m1* m2)/r2). Where F is force, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of object 1, and m2 is the mass of object 2. r is the distance between their centers of mass. In the formula it is squared. Is is how we put objects into space and keep them in orbit. It's also what makes plotting the trajectory of ballistic missiles difficult, as the force of gravity changes the higher the missile goes. At 4:23, what point is being made, and what context? I need more than that. (did you dismiss or discredit all of what was claimed up till that point?) the link between JPL,Crowley, and Hubbard was a very curious thing. I've known about it, but it doesn't change the fact the earth is not flat. I appreciate that you did focus on the info...and what you'd watched even to that point. I absolutely realize all of this "opposite" or new stuff related to our realm, the cosmos, theories on creation and time are challenging. (and some of it "impossible.") No one point is designed to change your mind on anything; That's all up to you. It is the eventual weight of accumulative new info and data that helped *me* understand and/or unravel/re-consider all new theories. (That the govt, MSM, academe, and PTB have been lying to us about everything is what finally led me to re-consider what I'd been told is "100% true.") I need more than that. I told you where to look. It asserts that the Gemini video of the space walk is fake. Force of Gravity (g) = Mass (m) * Acceleration due to gravity (32 ft per second squared) This is true of earth gravity at sea level. "Formulas" on a chalkboard still aren't definitive "proof" of the existence of "Gravity." There's air pressure to consider -- as well as mass and density in relation to the mass and density of surrounding media. It IS. But for the sake of argument, do you believe the "space walk" event is occurring in low earth orbit? There are lots of things that are well known and established fact. Don't confuse the fantasy realm with the objective world we live in. There are some that have dabbled into things that they shouldn't have. Perhaps for that reason we have some extremely evil people running things. But the earth is still a sphere, and the sun is but one star out of an unimaginable number. You would still have gravity in a vacuum. That and density does not affect the weight. Mass is the amount of matter regardless of the weight, as weight is actually the force of gravity upon that object. You see, in English units we actually use the force of gravity upon the object as a measure of its weight, not mass. In Metric units, we use the actual mass of the object and represent it in grams. Kilograms (1000)gram units are more generally used, especially in scientific calculations, where the MKS (Meters, Kilograms, and seconds) are the established units for distance, mass, and time. Weight in the Metric system is measured in Newtons. Weight is Force, in this case the force of gravity. But any force is measured in Newtons. It is curious...(don't forget the Disney link) The dot-connection of Satanists-Cultists speaks to the motives and deception of the same birds of a feather. The origins of NASA and "space" travel is curious. Their goal was to access the realm beyond the physical, which they knew intersected with the spiritual realm. I realize you disbelieve the Bible, but the description of our realm is discussed throughout in Scripture. It speaks of God's "Firmament," which according to the Bible is a "Glass Dome" of sorts. WITHIN this Firmament is (according to Scripture as well as many observers as late as the 1930s) lie the Sun and Moon. IF those like JPL, Crowley, Hubbard and Disney ALL had a goal to try and crash through The Firmament, aka God's "Glass Dome" (to either prove OR disprove God's word), THAT provides a motive. Why would you disbelieve it? Bro, I was born and raised Roman Catholic. What you're talking about must be some Protestant interpretation of the literal English. The Bible was written by men, and those men were far from infallible. There might be some spiritual nature inherent in the Torah, if you can understand the Hebrew. Other than that, you're reverting to the ignorance of the Dark Ages. Again, you're ignoring the actual discoveries of absolute proof that we are on but one of several planets orbiting our sun, out of close to an infinite number of stars. This is all observable with a telescope. As is the rotation of the earth itself. Yes...As well as many key "established" theories which are erroneously considered "facts." THIS is an ongoing big problem for institutional "Science." Don't confuse the fantasy realm with the objective world we live in. That's another problem; Accepting lab coats and past "scientific" dogma with pure theory and assumption. Btw, "Science" is waaaay to "subjective", which is how it's gotten itself into the kind of mess its in. IF it were truly "objective," the Lies would be dismissed and ridiculed instead of the Truth. There are some that have dabbled into things that they shouldn't have. Perhaps for that reason we have some extremely evil people running things. +100. THAT is the problem. Their agenda and cred is and has always been suspect and...sick. But the earth is still a sphere, and the sun is but one star out of an unimaginable number. Been there, done that. Truth blew my mind. That sir is ALL a lie, a series of one Big Lie after another. Once you see it all unfold before you, you don't nor ever can go back. Nothing personal if you disbelieve what I believe to be true and vice versa. That a force exist known as gravity is not a theory, it is an objective fact, just as it'd probably be safe to say most humans have two eyes, two legs, and two arms. WHY that force exist is open to THEORIES, but the fact is that it DOES exist. Lies that you consider facts ARE easily dismissed. You can not argue against facts, you can only try to twist those facts using lies. But the fact is, if you follow a guide of the sky you can find the planets depending on your longitude and latitude, and if you find Jupiter you can see its moons. You'll notice that the planet is moving across the lens, and that is because the earth is rotating. But... MEN also wrote everything you and many millions believe as "gospel" truth -- all man's "science," "knowledge," and all theories. Just sayin'. As to the credibility and fidelity of the Bible, its contents are the Inspired Word of God as He directed through the Holy Spirit. The Almighty certainly had the power to do so. No one has yet found a single lie within its bindings. Moreover its prophecies thus far have all been proven true. WHAT are the odds?) Ultimately, it is a matter of faith, Lurker. Yes, I believe EVERY single word in it. Now whether you or I or Aunt Tilly believe some, all, or none -- as well as the wisdom, truth, prophecy and Salvation through Jesus Christ -- is everyone's prerogative. Sorry to ask, but are you taking mind altering drugs? You're acting like electricity hasn't been discovered yet. I believe there is a God, that who is the actual Creator of all that exist. I just don't believe books written by men with an agenda. And again, the original Hebrew has a different meaning than that given by translators from ancient times to fairly recent history. I must have missed the one about men flying. Then again the Book of Revelations could well be a guide book written by those who are intent on destroying the earth. It certainly didn't make it into the New Testament as far as the church was concerned. I can't make you believe or disbelieve observations and facts against your will. And wouldn't want to. Perhaps I'll extend an effort to address and present your perspective and understanding as you see "the facts" eventually so that ONLY YOU will make whatever determination your own mind, eyes, and heart tell you. If you're indifferent about it, fine. If have faith in mankind to do the right thing, act in benevolent and generosity, and present truth as best as they can, then who am I to tell you otherwise? At the same time -- if *I* see the Truth, I'm sharing it with those who are actively seeking it. ?? I'm out of here, dude. Catch up whenever...
If you wanted to seek Truth bro, you'd get that telescope and view the planets. Look up Galileo and Copernicus. Here's a good link as to how religion treated the "heresy" of Galileo. Did the Roman Catholic Church execute Galileo? Here's info on Copernicus; So....You admit you only watched just 4:32 of my video yet are beckoning me to investigate the same institutional "Science" shills we've been taught is truth since grammar school?? Again -- Been there, done that. It's ALL hypothetical BS presented as FACT. Ergo...REJECTED. MANY scientific/cosmological/Earth & Space issues are addressed in it head on in it -- as well, INCLUDING Antarctica. You've also refused to watch the original "200 Proofs" vid submitted by Wudidiz. Yet Lurker, you make the above claim?? ("Apparently you didn't read what was being discussed.") WATCH. LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE. THEN we can have a great debate. The simple question was about posting a link to the proof of an assertion that was claimed to be the basis for the assertion. You've had WELL OVER 200 "proofs of assertions" submitted for your eyes via several videos. Now if you refuse to watch the evidence, refutations, "assertions" and proofs that totally obliterate Institutional LIES and Disney-like fake theater and CGI of NASA, the erroneous hypotheses of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, THAT IS ON YOU, my friend. THESES so-called "Scientists" -- aka high priests of PTB -- HAVE HIDDEN THE TRUTH; Gaslighted the masses. You, like most, have been lost in The Deception and its partner: The Power of Suggestion. Those 4K "photos" of "planets" and "suns"? Nothing but cartoons & CGI. (assigning dates and "telescopes" to the images is a nice touch.) Some people make the conscious choice to swallow the PTB's BLUE PILL. OTHERS will indeed swallow THE RED PILL. OMG, another total treasure. Such a gleefully production -- makes it 10 times funner! Yeah, I've been wondering about jet propulsion in space and I frankly find it impossible to believe we send spacecraft billions of miles away to photograph Saturn or whatever. The rebuttal I hear is that jet planes thrust against the air, with rockets it's things exploding away from each other -- something like that. Didn't sound very plausible either. Who's the guy speaking at 19:45? Looks familiar....... Admiral Byrd reported seeing some really wild stuff on his last trip to the Antarctica, and shut him up by their favorite method -- psychiatric confinement. _____________________________________________________________ USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
Yes, your flat earth hypothetical BS is exactly that, bullshit. You can't even figure out why objects fall when dropped, and can't understand why there is day and night, nor why there are seasons, eclipses, or why the sun brings warmth to the planet. And you obviously are too cheap or lazy to buy yourself a telescope and view the planets of the solar system, and also observe the earths rotation which is plainly obvious if you're looking at a planet through that telescope. You would like to undo all the scientific progress we've made for the past 500 years and burn scientists at the stake for the crime of heresy. Why don't you set the example and toss your cellphone and PC into the dumpster? Oh so neither rockets nor missiles exist? Are you for real or are you another one of these anti-reality nuts? Jet engines burn fuel by mixing air with the fuel. Rocket engines burn fuel by mixing liquid oxygen with the fuel. This is 3rd grade stuff man. Rocket engines burn fuel by mixing liquid oxygen with the fuel. Ok, so you admit the REAL science that AIR and/or LIQUID OXYGEN is required to combust fuel.. Riddle us this, Batman: HOW do you "combust" fuel in the alleged VACUUM OF SPACE?? HOW does a vessel "propel" itself within the alleged "vacuum of space" for 238 THOUSAND miles?? (and please don't say, "Liquid Oxygen") So... Not only that, during the entire supposed round-trip to the Moon, sufficient fuel FOR 238,000 miles x 238,000 miles = 576,000 miles not only required for combustion, BUT AT LIFT-OFF FROM THE MOON! This is 3rd grade stuff man. It sure is, man. EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION (Anybody): HOW did the alleged NASA "space ships" combust and fire rockets -- PLUS have enough fuel aboard that space-craft -- to not only launch from the Moon, but travel ANOTHER supposed 238,000 miles BACK to Earth?? (Have you noted how tiny those Apollo "space ships" were?? According to your calculations (OR ANYONE ELSE -- what was the fuel capacity of these Apollo vessels? And again -- sustained combustion in a vacuum is IMPOSSIBLE.) One need to suspend all logic, common sense AND known "Science" to accept this series of NASA Moon-Mission HOAXES at face value to begin with. I realize we ALL bought the Fairy Tale from NASA and the "Scientific Communitah," but it is TIME TO WAKE UP!! (Now you know why TRUTH and "Truthers" are feared more than anything from the PTB and Silicon Valley/See Eye A -- and considered "dangerous") Thank, brutha... There is a treasure trove of this kind of eye-opening material and truth out there. Yeah...This particular researcher's productions are refined AND entertaining (you just have to get beyond the initial music; he's a millennial.) I've been wondering about jet propulsion in space and I frankly find it impossible to believe we send spacecraft billions of miles away to photograph Saturn or whatever. For both you AND me, all it took was a logic & common sense AND real-science look at this whole "propulsion in a vacuum" claim; Or of actually examining NASA's/Hoax Science Communitah's ridiculous other claims that ANY spacecraft from NASA traveled 238,000 miles in a vacuum -- never mind MILLIONS and BILLION of miles to other planets! (Yes, the 4K photographs of planets, their and suns are obvious bogus photoshopped or CGI -- referred to as "Images" NOT "photos" if you'll notice.) Btw, did you know NASA itself has an official Disney-like "studio" where all their cartoons and artist depictions are displayed to GA-GA Trekkies & fanbois of their Science Fiction imaging and fairy tales?? Yup. The rebuttal I hear is that jet planes thrust against the air, with rockets it's things exploding away from each other -- something like that. Didn't sound very plausible either. Hear ya. NOT. Plausible. Not close. The whole crock is just that -- AND DON'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS!! The PTB Solution (or rather, demand -- lest you be called a "CT" or "Kook," or (gulp) "Truther": Just perform Spock's Vulcan 'Live long and prosper' hand signal, kneel before the altar of NASA, the See Eye A, the 911 Blue Ribbon Commission, the Rockefeller Foundation, The R/D Parties, Einstein, Copernicus and Newton, and of course...trust theoretical "SCIENCE" and its CULT. BECAUSE...They wouldn't lie to us, would they? That's Bill Nye, "The Science Guy." The PTB constantly use him and Neil De Grasse Tyson on TV shows -- both rabid Atheists -- to shill for their NASA/Space Cult to further indoctrinate the pods and the ignorant. Both are idiots. (Nye is on record wanting to lock up "Climate Deniers." There is a great video of him and Tucker Carlson smacking him around on YT) Admiral Byrd reported seeing some really wild stuff on his last trip to the Antarctica, and shut him up by their favorite method -- psychiatric confinement. Yes...Byrd's TV interview from 1954 is amazing (on YT of course, not easy to find for obvious reasons.) The PTB first tried to portray Byrd as a nut (their favorite thing to do to those who reveal too much.) When that didn't work, they shut him up for good in 1957 when he died suddenly. COINCIDENTALLY...In 1958 NASA was created. By 1959 the Antarctica Treaty was signed by ALL the world's powers, suspiciously and severely restricting ALL exploration and travel there other than for military or VIP (as well as below the 60th parallel.) OF NOTE: Admiral Byrd was entrusted to lead conducted THREE separate missions to Antarctica during the 1950s...Then spilled the beans that NO ONE had ever seen the Antarctica interior, revealing too much. On the TV show he said looked forward to discoveries of the Antarctica-Beyond -- but NEVER MADE IT. Nor has anyone else. EVER.
Comments (278 - 351) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#238. To: Liberator, NeoconsNailed (#232)
I don't know many Third Graders who can understand learned subject matter from a senior in HS. Even if explained carefully to a Third Grader, the extra nine years of accumulated information from the HS Seniors will rarely "make sense" for obvious reasons. Ergo the Third Grader will dismiss it as "stupid."
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#239. To: Liberator (#236)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#240. To: FormerLurker (#238)
Why do objects fall to the ground if dropped?
#241. To: Liberator (#234)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#242. To: Liberator (#240)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#243. To: Liberator (#240)
Simple case of Mass & Density.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#244. To: All (#243)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#245. To: FormerLurker (#239)
You apparently have no clue as to the fact people have known that the earth was a sphere orbiting the sun for at least 500 years.
#246. To: FormerLurker (#243)
You need a force to move an object.
#247. To: FormerLurker (#243)
When you push a box across the floor you have to exert a force upon that box for it to move.
#248. To: All (#244)
(Edited)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#249. To: FormerLurker (#241)
...it asserts that the video is somehow "fake" at the bottom of the screen. That is absurd.
#250. To: Liberator (#249)
At 4:23, what point is being made, and what context?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#251. To: FormerLurker (#248)
(Edited)
And do you flat earth people not understand that the force of gravity is calculated as follows?
#252. To: FormerLurker (#250)
It asserts that the Gemini video of the space walk is fake.
#253. To: Liberator (#249)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#254. To: Liberator (#251)
There's air pressure to consider -- as well as mass and density in relation to the mass and density of surrounding media.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#255. To: Liberator (#251)
(Edited)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#256. To: FormerLurker (#249)
the link between JPL,Crowley, and Hubbard was a very curious thing.
#257. To: Liberator (#252)
But for the sake of argument, do you believe the "space walk" event is occurring in low earth orbit?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#258. To: Liberator (#256)
I realize you disbelieve the Bible, but the description of our realm is discussed throughout in Scripture. It speaks of God's "Firmament," which according to the Bible is a "Glass Dome" of sorts. WITHIN this Firmament is (according to Scripture as well as many observers as late as the 1930s) lie the Sun and Moon.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#259. To: Liberator (#256)
(Edited)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#260. To: FormerLurker (#253)
There are lots of things that are well known and established fact.
#261. To: Liberator (#260)
Yes...As well as many key "established" theories which are erroneously considered "facts." THIS is an ongoing big problem for institutional "Science."
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#262. To: Liberator (#260)
IF it were truly "objective," the Lies would be dismissed and ridiculed instead of the Truth.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#263. To: FormerLurker (#258)
(Edited)
The Bible was written by men, and those men were far from infallible.
#264. To: Liberator (#260)
Once you see it all unfold before you, you don't nor ever can go back.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#265. To: Liberator (#263)
(Edited)
Yes, I believe EVERY single word in it.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#266. To: Liberator (#263)
(Edited)
Moreover its prophecies thus far have all been proven true. WHAT are the odds?)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#267. To: FormerLurker (#262)
You can not argue against facts, you can only try to twist those facts using lies.
#268. To: FormerLurker (#266)
I must have missed the one about men flying.
#269. To: FormerLurker (#266)
#270. To: Liberator (#267)
I can't make you believe or disbelieve observations and facts against your will. And wouldn't want to.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#271. To: FormerLurker, NeoconsNailed, wudidiz (#238)
(Edited)
Apparently you didn't read what was being discussed.
#272. To: Liberator (#234)
(Edited)
#273. To: Liberator (#271)
Again -- Been there, done that. It's ALL hypothetical BS presented as FACT.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#274. To: NeoconsNailed (#272)
The rebuttal I hear is that jet planes thrust against the air, with rockets it's things exploding away from each other -- something like that. Didn't sound very plausible either.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#275. To: FormerLurker, NeoconsNailed, wudidiz, NASA Fanbois (#274)
Jet engines burn fuel by mixing air with the fuel.
#276. To: NeoconsNailed (#272)
#277. To: NeoconsNailed (#272)
Who's the guy speaking at 19:45? Looks familiar.......
.
.
.