It's true, this guy has proof.:rolleyes:
Printable View
It's true, this guy has proof.:rolleyes:
hahaha... that was funny. I'm going to finish up reading the other tidbits he has on here, it's very very interesting to read.
That is really stretching things. I wonder if he is making fun of typical conspiracy theorists.
OK, but keep in mind that I don't believe any of these are true. Like this one that claims the sun doesn't exist. Not really interesting but funny really.
And one talking about the great Irish potato hoax.
Real or not, this guy is hilarious.
Yes, it is satire, and pretty funny too.
Anyone who thinks this is serious is a fool. It was sad reading the angry feedback from what he calls "lunarists" who did not get the joke.
How can you be so gullible to believe this is serious... *sigh*
PS: The moon is real, true. But if you believe in stars, you're a flipping goon. They're just dead pixels in the sky. It is 10 billion years old after all.
Haha, that was great. Read his article on 9/11.
http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/The...evisionist.htm
"Naturally, our first suspicion was directed against the most obvious suspect: Sweden. It has long been known by revisionist researchers that the people of Sweden define themselves as Swedish, as opposed to all other people who are non-Swedish and therefore considered, by implication, inferior with regards to whatever qualities make someone Swedish. And even though this division of the world between Swedes and non-Swedes is based to a large extent simply on whether someone has been born in Sweden or to Swedish parents, the world has been strangely silent and reticent about this obviously racist criteria for inclusion. Besides, any people who would produce sweet mustard must be capable of any depravity.
However, unable to attribute any specific motive to Sweden, our attention was directed against the only country that did have a clear and obvious reason to stage an attack on the United States in precisely this manner: Canada."
Ah this guy is great.
Newton used the rotation of the moon to derive his theories about gravity. That means that there must be no such thing as gravity too, I guess the christians were right :?
Hehe, I like this passage from the Sun article:
:PQuote:
Lack of eyewitness evidence
As for eyewitnesses, the sun is said to be very difficult to look at. This means that there are NO reliable eyewitnesses. This is clearly problematic. As for photographic evidence, once again as with the moon, no photograph was taken of the sun before the 19th century. The sun appears indistinct in most photographs - that is if the developers even return pictures featuring the sun, which they suspiciously dispose of as "faulty".