200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:03 pm

Posted by rare on 08/21/2015

Excellent picture find. This reminds me that it was Jesuit priests infiltrating the Chinese inner culture, under the subterfuge of being astrologers and mathematicians, that stole the secret of silk (smuggling silk eggs out in hollow canes) and the arcane knowledge of porcelain (the white gold of the 18th century) funded and aided by the India companies. Both criminal acts with no other interest than monetary gain.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:04 pm

Posted by csp on 08/21/2015

Aug 20, 2015 19:53:27 GMT schpankme said:
I firmly believe the Vacuum of Space to be a hologram, created by Jesuits, and maintained by  Freemasons.   >Smile


I wholeheartedly agree - you can even see in the picture the many astrolabes of different forms from the mariner in his hand, to the armillary on the desk, to the sine quadrant and perspective marker on the wall.. along with the celestial globe on the ground. He is then using the masonic compass to map the "earth" onto the globe - in plain sight!

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:05 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 09/01/2015
#32.

"If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction."




_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:06 pm

Posted by gnosticwarrior on 09/02/2015

Interested to hear some opinions, thoughts, and counters to this, lol:

"Why are there are no tides in rivers, lakes and other water bodies except oceans? The gravitational pull of the moon acts even on these water bodies!":

www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-199833,00.html

..."It does, but the force is immeasurably small on something tiny like a balloon or a human, it's all a matter of scale, the oceans consist of many billions of tons of water, spread over thousands of square miles but the tide is only a few metres high out in the open ocean ( those few metres can be magnified by the topology of the coasts and ocean floor)":

www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-gravity-of-the-Moon-affect-anything-else-on-Earth-besides-water-tides

"It does. Let us consider the effect of gravitational pull on the 3 states of matter.
Solid (you, me, sand, buildings, cars etc) : does experience the pull but the magnitude of the gravitational force is so small that it fails to create a physical deformity in solids. Hence solids remain unchanged.
Liquids (Oceans and Seas) : The intermolecular spaces in liquids are larger than in solids and hence the physical changes due to an increased or decreased gravitational pull is more visible in liquids. 
Gases ( Air, atmosphere) : In the case of gases, there is obviously a change but you cannot see air or atmosphere so its difficult to measure or quantify. The maximum that could happen is during the increased of decreased gravitational pull (high and low tide respectively) the air gets just a fraction thinner or thicker which will again not create a physical difference on how humans perceive the atmosphere around them. 
Again, this is what I think."

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:07 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/02/2015

Sept 1, 2015 14:49:29 GMT gnosticwarrior said:
Interested to hear some opinions, thoughts, and counters to this, lol:

"Why are there are no tides in rivers, lakes and other water bodies except oceans? The gravitational pull of the moon acts even on these water bodies!":

www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-199833,00.html

..."It does, but the force is immeasurably small on something tiny like a balloon or a human, it's all a matter of scale, the oceans consist of many billions of tons of water, spread over thousands of square miles but the tide is only a few metres high out in the open ocean ( those few metres can be magnified by the topology of the coasts and ocean floor)":

www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-gravity-of-the-Moon-affect-anything-else-on-Earth-besides-water-tides

"It does. Let us consider the effect of gravitational pull on the 3 states of matter.
Solid (you, me, sand, buildings, cars etc) : does experience the pull but the magnitude of the gravitational force is so small that it fails to create a physical deformity in solids. Hence solids remain unchanged.
Liquids (Oceans and Seas) : The intermolecular spaces in liquids are larger than in solids and hence the physical changes due to an increased or decreased gravitational pull is more visible in liquids. 
Gases ( Air, atmosphere) : In the case of gases, there is obviously a change but you cannot see air or atmosphere so its difficult to measure or quantify. The maximum that could happen is during the increased of decreased gravitational pull (high and low tide respectively) the air gets just a fraction thinner or thicker which will again not create a physical difference on how humans perceive the atmosphere around them. 
Again, this is what I think."

This is absolutely pathetic, incorrect and contradictory. 

If a force were powerful enough to affect the giant oceans, its effect would be even greater on smaller bodies of water. If the Moon caused the ocean tides like they say it does, then there would be proportionally more powerful waves in smaller bodies of water, to the extent that puddles should not even settle due to the force moving them. 

We don't even need to debunk this argument, because it is based on the existence of gravity, which Eric has completely destroyed. 

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:08 pm

Posted by aleksandar2015 on 09/02/2015

There are lakes bigger than seas by area, but still not affected by tides. Lol.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:13 pm

Posted by Admin on 09/06/2015

Katalin Stappenbeck on FB (or "kokoro" on the forum) had mentioned doing a German translation of either FEC or 200 Proofs, can't remember which, and not sure if she has started or not. Perhaps you might want to contact her first. Thanks so much for doing that! Anyone willing to translate any of my books to other languages I really appreciate and will make it available for free on all sites.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:14 pm

Posted by susie on 09/08/2015


Try to use this tool on a spinning ball!!



_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:15 pm

Posted by changemylife456 on 09/14/2015

Thank you Eric for composing this Info in one easy concise File. I've seen bits & pieces of this Info on Videos of yours I've caught & a few other sources. Here you've got it all together! Your efforts are appreciated.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:19 pm

Posted by susie on 09/21/2015





Chicago is 60 miles from Lake Michigan and should be .45 mile below the curve. But i's not.





A pillar reflection is only possible on a flat plane. On a spherically curved sea, you'd only have a hotspot.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:20 pm

Posted by susie on 09/28/2015




If this needs moved please do so. Here is information about radio broadcasts which were impossible on a ball being done as early as 1915 that have been suppressed.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:21 pm

Posted by radicaldualist on 09/29/2015

From Wikipedia about Vatican Radio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Radio

"Vatican Radio began broadcasting with the callsign HVJ[3] on two shortwave frequencies using 10 kilowatts (kW) of power on February 12, 1931, with the pontificial message "Omni creaturae" of Pope Pius XI.[4] Also in attendance was Guglielmo Marconi and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who would become Pope Pius XII[4] Its first director was physicist Giuseppe Gianfranceschi, who was also the president of the Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei.

In 1933, a permanent microwave link was established between the Vatican Palace and the summer residence of the papacy, Castel Gandolfo.[4]

In 1936, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) recognized Vatican Radio as a "special case" and authorized its broadcasting without any geographical limits. On December 25, 1937, a Telefunken 25 kW transmitter and two directional antennas were added. Vatican Radio broadcast over 10 frequencies.[4]"

Here the link to a webpage about that event (page it's in italian). 

www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/vaticano.html

Quote from the same page: "Le 15,30: Guglielmo Marconi con la consorte fa ingresso nella palazzina. Si reca subito nella Sala degli amplificatori per una serie di collegamenti intercontinentali: New York, Melbourne, Quebec."
Translation: " At 15.30: Guglielmo Marconi and wife entered the building. He goes first to the Amplifiers Room for a series of intercontinental broadcasts: New York, Melbourne, Quebec."

As you can see the ITU,mentioned in Wikipedia,gave to Radio Vaticana a truly worldwide range of broadcasting authorization. Only 10Kw of power was enough in 1931 to broadcast to Australia.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:22 pm

Posted by thor on 09/29/2015

Sept 1, 2015 14:49:29 GMT gnosticwarrior said:
Interested to hear some opinions, thoughts, and counters to this, lol:

"Why are there are no tides in rivers, lakes and other water bodies except oceans? The gravitational pull of the moon acts even on these water bodies!":

www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-199833,00.html

..."It does, but the force is immeasurably small on something tiny like a balloon or a human, it's all a matter of scale, the oceans consist of many billions of tons of water, spread over thousands of square miles but the tide is only a few metres high out in the open ocean ( those few metres can be magnified by the topology of the coasts and ocean floor)":

www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-gravity-of-the-Moon-affect-anything-else-on-Earth-besides-water-tides

"It does. Let us consider the effect of gravitational pull on the 3 states of matter.
Solid (you, me, sand, buildings, cars etc) : does experience the pull but the magnitude of the gravitational force is so small that it fails to create a physical deformity in solids. Hence solids remain unchanged.
Liquids (Oceans and Seas) : The intermolecular spaces in liquids are larger than in solids and hence the physical changes due to an increased or decreased gravitational pull is more visible in liquids. 
Gases ( Air, atmosphere) : In the case of gases, there is obviously a change but you cannot see air or atmosphere so its difficult to measure or quantify. The maximum that could happen is during the increased of decreased gravitational pull (high and low tide respectively) the air gets just a fraction thinner or thicker which will again not create a physical difference on how humans perceive the atmosphere around them. 
Again, this is what I think."


Hehe, as you may have noticed they sort of contradict (for lack of a better word) each other:

the Guardian answer says the water is a singularity, one heavy body (of water), the other talks about water being molecules with the space in between larger than molecules in solids blah blah, i.e. many singular entities.
The Guardian argument seems to me to be wrong. A lot of water is heavy, yes, but it still just a big bunch of individual molecules lying in the same place with some rather weak forces acting between them - I can still pick up some water from the ocean with out breaking a sweat, can't I...Or suck it up with a vacuum cleaner or straw...
Water molecules should be pulled out and up by the moons attraction, maybe only a few molecules at a time, but over time shouldn't we see a stream of water and vapour between the moon and the earth, if the moon affects the oceans by gravity? And what about the air molecules in the atmosphere...? Too little mass you might say, but didn't the celebrated fraudster Einstein claim even light had mass, if ever so little, but still it was affected by gravity? (proven wrong of course).
Or let's say it's the other way round. Earth, after all, is bigger than the moon, SO why don't we have moon dust streaming down to Earth..or create dust tides on the surface of the moon? Or a bulge...

I think many posts have put gravity in the coffin and explained very well why tides happen.

But as a previous poster mentioned, I will postulate that all water and other loose stuff on the ball planet should end up in a belt of water and dirt around equator due to the centrifugal force fighting gravity at the rim. Moon pull or no pull...thats a big tide right there.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:23 pm

Posted by thor on 09/29/2015


One of the questions I get when presenting the true nature of our earth to sceptics, is often in the line of "why can't I see Mount Everest, if the Earth is flat?!" Or "I can see satellites flying around"...
I usually use the simple Linear Perspective 'law' to show people that they cannot see things that far away: Apparent Height = Real Height / Distance (in meters)
It a simple way to look at perspective and it fits what we see. No need for 'angular perspective' and other more complex stuff. If you see something and know how far away it is, you can calculate approximately how big it is by estimating the apparent height to your eyes. And you can calculate how big things would appear to you, if you know the distance and size of the object.

I see the sun and moon resembling discs that approximates 1cm in diameter when I look at them (I simply stretch my arm and hold out my thumb and forefinger for measuring approx appearance), but they do vary somewhat. Obviously measuring the sun is hard on the eyes, so be careful if you try! It actually fits nicely with the NASA distances and size as well, so they must have taken care there to be somewhat correct  In any case it fits if we say the Sun and the Moon are 3000 miles away and measures around 30 miles in size, they would appear to be 1cm big in the sky.

So if you were say 3000 km away from Mt. Everest it would have the apparent height of 2.5 mm (~0.1 inch) - as seen from 1 meters distance. It easy to see that looking at something that small through the atmosphere and general obstacles is, needless to say, difficult.
When it gets to satellites it even more ridiculous. A 3 meter big LEO (160km) satellite would appear 0.018 mm 'big' to the eye of the beholder. Thats 0.0007 inch!
A house dust mite is around 0.2–0.3 millimetres (0.008–0.012 in) in length or ten times that for comparison. If a dust mite took his dust mite torch and shone it at you, do you think you would be able to see it? I think not.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:23 pm

Posted by susie on 10/07/2015


The Roman Aquaducts ..... water leading 500 miles to Rome. Some elevation angles were a mere 6 inches to the mile. How does one get water to follow the curvature over this distance .. over a 500 mile span?


_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by susie on 10/11/2015

Neil Dyer ▶ Earth is Flat 

Here is a stunning revelation which I have not seen before. There are sacred sites around the "globe' where when connected it is claimed they make a circle around the globe. I went to Google Earth to do this for my self and did not find it to be circle much like that we call the equator.

In Photoshop I opened a file depicting the flat earth. On there, I plotted only seven or eight sacred sites before it became completely obvious to me from looking at the pattern what it is I have found.

Of all of the sacred geometry and all of any sacred number there is only one which stands apart from all other. Phi, a number derived from the Fibonacci sequence, where in its ever-perfecting narrowing can be usefully considered as 1.618, or 1:618. This is also called the Golden Number or Golden Ratio. It is the pattern you see in a sunflower or the spiral you see in a nautilus shell. It has defined beauty in every form of nature including every aspect of your body proportions from your fingers to your face. It and pi is the most profound numbers found in the Great Pyramid at Giza. Phi defines the shape of hurricanes and that of a human embryo with its God like spiral. Without much more ado, I'll list the sites which this spiral intersects and post for further comments or criticism. If you ask me, I would say this is the most convincing evidence connecting ancient historical sites providing a template to which only a flat earth allows.

Easter Island .. Paracas .. Nazca .. Ollantaytambo .. Machu Pichu .. Cuzco .. Sacsayhuaman .. Paratoari .. Giza .. Petra in Jordan .. Peresepolis, Iran .. Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan .. Pyay in Burma .. Sukhothai in Thailand .. Ankor Wat in Cambodia .. Preah Vihear. by Bruce Robinson.
Photos from Neil Dyer's post in Earth is Flat - They Live! · Yesterday at 1:02am 

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2081
Points : 5470
Reputation : 2753
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 25
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Basic observation

Post by Ahough1706 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:14 am

Just thinking out loud but wouldn't there be a much more defined terminator line if the sun was 93 million miles away? Meaning if the sun is that far away and it covers half of the ball no matter where it is then it shouldn't get dark so gradually like this, if the sun is still above the horizon then why would it be any darker then any other time in the day? The sun is in full view yet the light gradually fades like a spotlight hovering over top..The sky should be lit from the sun until it's under the horizon and night should come almost instantly.Going along with this thought, what about the sunrise...why does it get so gradually light if the sun is above the horizon we should be hit with the full intensity of the sun because we are not any further away we are just rotating towards the sun and the intensity would always be constant and the only thing that would change would be the direction of the shadows not the brightness. Someone may have already pointed this out but i was just watching the sunset today thunking about it. Peace.

Ahough1706

Posts : 2
Points : 382
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-03-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Ahough1706 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:23 am

Also you can see the stars revealing themselves on the opposite side of the sky from where the sun is at close to sunset.

Ahough1706

Posts : 2
Points : 382
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-03-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Tamela Shreya on Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:26 am

The point about Shooting Stars here at 10:15

Waykiwayki Interview with Luke De Padey

  A very large building that covers a decent amount of curvature would be be an upside down trapezoid or uncapped pyramid if vertical spirit levels or plumb bobs are used in its construction. Brian Mullins explained it better with diagrams in one of his vids.

  The 3 main pyramids of Egypt were built a long time ago, I imagine that they took a long time to build, they were built to line up to Orion's Belt. They still do and that doesn't make sense if our solar system is break dancing through space.


Last edited by Tamela Shreya on Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : wrong link)

Tamela Shreya

Posts : 3
Points : 66
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2017-01-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum