Flat Earth

[BADecker]

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

Personally, I don't think anybody should get a negative trust rating for something he believes in. I mean, if you think it is right, and you are right or wrong, that is no reason for a trust rating in a forum. Giving such a trust rating is childish.

Where you are wrong with anything that includes the aether is, nobody has enough knowledge as to how the aether acts, and why it acts that way, to conclusively use aether "science" as proof for anything... at least not the way you are using it.

[Vod]

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

You are a liar.     WHO is hiding?

My name and address are known.  I live with my beliefs every day.

Let's see YOU identify yourself and have your family, friends and coworkers know you are a liar.

Anonymous people can be as dishonest as they want.

 

[notbatman]

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

Yeah but you didn't answer though. Have you performed the experiments yourself or are you just trusting random internet websites? Why is it that everytime an article/website is against your belief it is a hoax but if it supports your belief it has to be 100% true? Stop being a dishonest person.

The five scientific experiments I offer as proof,

1. Aiy's Failure Experiment,
2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment,
3. The Trouton–Noble experiment,
4. The Sagnac Experiment,
5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment,

they've all been carefully documented and repeated by others. The results of the experiments are agreed upon by everybody. Why should my argument be dismissed when nobody is arguing the results? Any results from me attempting to replicate all those experiments myself would have less credibility than the existing documented results.

Am I "just trusting random internet websites"? No, these are established scientific experiments.

Finally you accuse me of being dishonest, fuck off you worthless sack of shit.

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

Personally, I don't think anybody should get a negative trust rating for something he believes in. I mean, if you think it is right, and you are right or wrong, that is no reason for a trust rating in a forum. Giving such a trust rating is childish.

Where you are wrong with anything that includes the aether is, nobody has enough knowledge as to how the aether acts, and why it acts that way, to conclusively use aether "science" as proof for anything... at least not the way you are using it.

No I'm not wrong about aether, those five established scientific experiments I offer as proof are not wrong. Those experiments have been carefully documented, replicated by others and the results have been confirmed.

^^^ No it's not meaningless, Vod is claiming I'm a liar and given me a negative trust rating as a member of the default trust list for stating a provable fact. Fucking sack of shit hides behind the cop-out to authority.

You are a liar.     WHO is hiding?

My name and address are known.  I live with my beliefs every day.

Let's see YOU identify yourself and have your family, friends and coworkers know you are a liar.

Anonymous people can be as dishonest as they want.

 

If you've been doxed, then perhaps you should be more careful about who you make false accusation about when you're screwing over their ability to trade and make money on this forum.

[Vod]

The five scientific experiments I offer as proof,

1. Aiy's Failure Experiment,    DEBUNKED
2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment,   DEBUNKED
3. The Trouton–Noble experiment,  DEBUNKED
4. The Sagnac Experiment,  DEBUNKED
5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment,  Replicated a failed experiment.

What about MILLIONS of SUCCESSFUL experiments the rest of the world offers as proof?

I even gave you your wikipedia links for each failed experiment.

If you've been doxed

Never been doxed.  Signed up on this forum with my real name.  Unlike you, I don't hide.

Lie to yourself - not to us.

 

[Astargath]

The five scientific experiments I offer as proof,

1. Aiy's Failure Experiment,    DEBUNKED
2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment,   DEBUNKED
3. The Trouton–Noble experiment,  DEBUNKED
4. The Sagnac Experiment,  DEBUNKED
5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment,  Replicated a failed experiment.

What about MILLIONS of SUCCESSFUL experiments the rest of the world offers as proof?

I even gave you your wikipedia links for each failed experiment.

If you've been doxed

Never been doxed.  Signed up on this forum with my real name.  Unlike you, I don't hide.

Lie to yourself - not to us.

 

Exactly, I can easily link more experiments proving the earth is a sphere or gravity exists. Why do you trust any of those experiments but not our experiments, notbatman? You didn't replicate any of them so...

[SaltySpitoon]

The five scientific experiments I offer as proof,

1. Aiy's Failure Experiment,
2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment,
3. The Trouton–Noble experiment,
4. The Sagnac Experiment,
5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment,

None of those experiments were ever actually done. Its just lizard people that proposed those fake experiments to trick us. If they had actually been done the mudman would have objected and sacrificed 50% of the population of the continent the experiments were done on, as is what happened when the "black plague" hit Europe. If you didn't personally witness those experiments being done, you are just listening to the man, man...

All jokes aside, you can't invoke "science" after discrediting it by saying the basis of their foundations are incorrect. You've already claimed those experiments are invalid if we are to assume your previous claims. You can't use them as proof to support your new claim. Fact check your own claims and theories with the proof you are providing.

I stopped caring around the time that we stopped talking science, and started talking fairy tales. But, if you took a few minutes to compile all of your claims, you'd see just how many contradictions there are in the proofs, if we consider your assertions as fact. If an experiment is saying, we came to this conclusion due to gravity, or by laws of optics, but you have already claimed that those laws aren't real, how can you say that the experiment is proof of anything?

[notbatman]

The adage of the Jew crying out in pain as he strikes you keeps getting reinforced here; you're all selling science but I'm the only one actually delivering.

Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory. The Cavendish Experiment doesn't deliver proof, electrostatic forces render it useless. Every argument against my scientific proof the Earth is motionless rests on Special Relativity's claim there is no aether however, Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment proves SR is not consistent with experimental results.

[SaltySpitoon]

The adage of the Jew crying out in pain as he strikes you keeps getting reinforced here; you're all selling science but I'm the only one actually delivering.

Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory. The Cavendish Experiment doesn't deliver proof, electrostatic forces render it useless. Every argument against my scientific proof the Earth is motionless rests on Special Relativity's claim there is no aether however, Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment proves SR is not consistent with experimental results.

You are saying science isn't correct, and then using the same science to prove your case. We can either assume that you are right in the first place, and your proof doesn't hold up. Or your proof is right, in which case your your assumptions are wrong. You need to recreate your own laws of physics and prove that they work if you want to do that. You can't prove that the aether exists, with the same laws that say it don't. Its just lazy.

By the way, the derivation of gravitational forces and electrostatics are nearly identical. I'd have to do some digging, but there is a strong chance that coulomb's law that you love so much relies on the concept of gravity, and if we deny gravity, we deny coulombs law.

F = GM1M2/R^2 is a force of attraction between two masses, dependent on the distance between those masses

F=kQ1Q2/R^2 exploits gaussian spherical surfaces using a force of attraction between two charges, dependent on the distance between those charges.

I'd reckon that the relationship between charge attraction and mass attraction theories were derived from the same place, so you can't have one without the other.

I really can't tell if you believe what you are saying yourself, or if this is just something you are playing around with for fun. I suppose it doesn't matter, but if you want people to take you serious at all, your story should at least be as sound a Harry Potter book. Link all of your theories together, and see if they contradict one another. From what you've said so far, they do. You say A = B, B= C but A!=C and then use A=C to prove your point. Stop jumping around from claim to claim, start with square one, by proving your assumptions. If your proof of your assumptions relies on things that say your assumptions are wrong, try again.

Astrophysics predates Judaism, so maybe physics controls the Jews?

[Vod]

Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory.

When you were dropped on your head as a child, it was gravity that pulled you down. 

[snarlpill]

Just now stumbled across this thread, I love interesting/conspiracy shit like this! Posting to follow along in subscribed threads and catch up on previous posts when I have the time.

I knew a gentleman who was in the US Navy for a few years, stationed on one of those huge aircraft carriers out at sea, and he was a Flat Earther himself who made some very good points and provided scientific evidence from his time in the Navy. Had many fascinating discussions with that friend actually, good times!

I love having deep discussions about crazy shit like this and conspiracies, time travel, religion, etc. - Especially while trippin' balls on some good L or shrooms!

[Astargath]

The adage of the Jew crying out in pain as he strikes you keeps getting reinforced here; you're all selling science but I'm the only one actually delivering.

Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory. The Cavendish Experiment doesn't deliver proof, electrostatic forces render it useless. Every argument against my scientific proof the Earth is motionless rests on Special Relativity's claim there is no aether however, Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment proves SR is not consistent with experimental results.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-flat-earthers-say-that-the-Michelson-Morley-experiment-Airys-failure-and-sagnac-prove-a-flat-stationary-earth

Your ''experiments'' are easily debunked, watching youtube videos that tell you they proved the earth is flat is not proof.

[notbatman]

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

[presduterte]

So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?

[SaltySpitoon]

Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.

You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.

You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.

In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.

And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.


This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?

[Astargath]

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever?

[notbatman]

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever?

I'm just going to let you flail spastically on this.

Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.

You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.

You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.

In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.

And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.


This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?

Michelson assumed the Sun was 93 millions miles away and tried to prove the Earth was in motion (like Airy), it wasn't any kind of conclusion based on experiment.

Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive; the conclusion reached by M&M was that it's consistent with a static aether and a motionless Earth. They (the Jews) claimed that M&M was consistent with both SR and a static aether thus making the claim of a static aether inconclusive. This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.

Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself.

Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M.

Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory.

Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn.

So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?

[img]https:// ... /multiverse-theory.jpg[/img]

The keyword here is "theory".

[Astargath]

^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.

He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.

Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.

''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever?

I'm just going to let you flail spastically on this.

Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.

You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.

You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.

In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.

And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.


This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?

Michelson assumed the Sun was 93 millions miles away and tried to prove the Earth was in motion (like Airy), it wasn't any kind of conclusion based on experiment.

Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive; the conclusion reached by M&M was that it's consistent with a static aether and a motionless Earth. They (the Jews) claimed that M&M was consistent with both SR and a static aether thus making the claim of a static aether inconclusive. This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.

Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself.

Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M.

Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory.

Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn.

So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?

[img]https:// ... /multiverse-theory.jpg[/img]

The keyword here is "theory".

''Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive'' How do you know, were you there?

''This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.'' How do you know, were you there? Did you do it yourself?

''The keyword here is "theory" You mean this?:

''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''

[SaltySpitoon]

Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself.

Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M.

Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory.

Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn.

This is really getting pitiful. I'm not taking a jab at your beliefs, I'm taking a jab at your thought process. For the sake of analyzing your statements, I'm assuming your initial conditions are true. I personally don't think they are, but thats not the point. If I assume the aether is real, the earth isn't moving, and the sun is where and what you claim, then your proofs of those topics don't hold up.

I'm not saying a gravitational field must be present, I'm saying that the laws that you are claiming as evidence requires a gravitational field to be present. Whether gravity is real or not, I don't care. My point is that theory A relies on Variable B, where Variable B is gravity. You claim that Theory A is proof of your point, however you also claim that Gravity isn't real, making Theory A not hold up. If you want to say, oh the aether is why we don't need gravity, you need a full set of calculations proving that is the case. We should then be able to take your full set of calculations, apply them to any situation, on earth, off of earth, in imaginary space, inside of a black hole, whatever. And it should still make sense. Let me see your derivations and how you reached your conclusion. I'm not humoring you just to be a jerk, I'm humoring you because even though I think you are wrong, that doesn't mean that you aren't going to accidentally stumble onto something that is actually going on.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not just saying, NOPE! AETHER ISN'T REAL TRY AGAIN! But you refuse to show how you came to the conclusion that it does exist. Find me a single scientist in any field that resorts to name calling or misdirection to personal attacks. Prove your point with your conclusions and how you came to them, not by throwing random assumptions out and then telling people they are stupid for not understanding how you came to your conclusions.

I believe that Theory A and Variable B exist. But, if I am to assume that you are right, there are too many contradictions to count. Its not that I'm trying to reject your own ideals, I'm just trying to make sense of them. You are disproving yourself. Take a few minutes to link all of your thoughts together. Start with your assumptions, and then make sure the experiments that you are using as proof don't rely on your assumptions being false. If an experiment says oh, we used this equation to figure out whats going on, and that equation relies on gravity, which you claim doesn't exist, then you are claiming the experiment was performed wrong, and you can't use it as proof.

If you'd like, I can treat you like an idiot, and ask you, "Do you believe in mass, do you believe in gravity, do you believe in friction, do you believe friction comes from gravity, do you believe in electric charge" but I'd much rather you just list your assumptions yourself, so we don't spend 30 minutes talking about how an experiment was flawed, just to have you say, Oh yeah by the way, I don't believe that mass exists. There are somewhat decent theories that mass doesn't exist, and that everything is governed by a law of attraction and repulsion of electric fields.

[notbatman]

...

''Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive'' How do you know, were you there?

The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use it (SR), as their excuse to claim the experiment (M&M) is inconclusive.

''This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.'' How do you know, were you there? Did you do it yourself?

The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use the excuse that, The Sagnac Experiment doesn't take rotating frames of reference into account to claim it (TSE), is not conclusive. The Prunier & Dufour replication took rotating frames of reference into account and the results are conclusive; SR is not consistent with experiment.

Did I do it myself? No we're arguing about established scientific experiments here!

''The keyword here is "theory" You mean this?:

''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''

If you change "A scientific theory is an explanation ..." to "A scientific theory is a possible explanation ..." then yes.

[exemplaar]

I did not witnessed that myself YET, but you can always analyze footage that you already have.  Look and it is obvious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g

If you believe this footage is real, I'm sad because there is little hope left for you. You have been hoodwinked by nasa.

I already warned you about this. A lie is always a lie. A lie can never defeat The Truth.